# SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 1 S.C.R. 509
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-02-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2022
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, B. V. Nagarathna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/smt-rekha-jain-and-anr-v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-ors-35856
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Criminal
proceedings u/ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC - Six
accused including appellants-accused -Allegation in FIR that one
co-accused had misappropriated complainant's and other persons'
monies whereafter the property in question was attached in the year
1998-199 against the amounts due; and in the year 2019, the
property was purchased by the appellants - High Court declined to
quash criminal proceedings against the appellants - Justification
of - Held: Not justified - Main allegations were against the coaccused - Only allegation against the appellants was that they
purchased the property in question - Even from the averments and
allegations in the FIR, no prima facie case made out against the
appellants - To continue criminal proceedings against the appellants
would be an abuse of process of law and the Court, and unnecessary
harassment to the appellants - Criminal proceedings quashed
insofar as appellants are concerned - IPC - ss.406, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Having perused the allegations in the complaint/
F.I.R., it can be seen that the main allegations are against the
other co-accused. The only allegation against the appellants is
that they have purchased the property in question, which was
attached in the year 1998-1999 against the amounts due and
payable to the depositors, who had deposited in Kuber Mutual
Benefits Ltd. between 1998-1999. It is to be noted that the
property has been purchased by the appellants in the year 2019.
Nothing is brought on record that at the time when the property
was purchased by the appellants, the attachment was continued
and/or any attachment was registered. There are no allegations
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
that the appellants are related to the other co-accused. Even from
the averments and the allegations in the F.I.R., it cannot be said
that there is any prima facie case made out against the appellants
for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The main allegations are against other co-accused.
Therefore, to continue the criminal proceedings against the
appellants would be an abuse of process of law and the Court and
unnecessary harassment to the appellants, who seem to be the
purchasers of the property on payment of sale consideration. In
the above facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court
ought to have exercised its powers and discretion under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings
against the appellants. [Para 6][512-G-H; 513-A-D]
2. The criminal proceedings for offences under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, including the charge
sheet are hereby quashed and set aside in so far as the appellants
are concerned. [Para 7][513-D-E]

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 509
509
SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Criminal
proceedings u/ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC - Six
accused including appellants-accused -Allegation in FIR that one
co-accused had misappropriated complainant's and other persons'
monies whereafter the property in question was attached in the year
1998-199 against the amounts due; and in the year 2019, the
property was purchased by the appellants - High Court declined to
quash criminal proceedings against the appellants - Justification
of - Held: Not justified - Main allegations were against the coaccused - Only allegation against the appellants was that they
purchased the property in question - Even from the averments and
allegations in the FIR, no prima facie case made out against the
appellants - To continue criminal proceedings against the appellants
would be an abuse of process of law and the Court, and unnecessary
harassment to the appellants - Criminal proceedings quashed
insofar as appellants are concerned - IPC - ss.406, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Having perused the allegations in the complaint/
F.I.R., it can be seen that the main allegations are against the
other co-accused. The only allegation against the appellants is
that they have purchased the property in question, which was
attached in the year 1998-1999 against the amounts due and
payable to the depositors, who had deposited in Kuber Mutual
Benefits Ltd. between 1998-1999. It is to be noted that the
property has been purchased by the appellants in the year 2019.
Nothing is brought on record that at the time when the property
was purchased by the appellants, the attachment was continued
and/or any attachment was registered. There are no allegations
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
that the appellants are related to the other co-accused. Even from
the averments and the allegations in the F.I.R., it cannot be said
that there is any prima facie case made out against the appellants
for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The main allegations are against other co-accused.
Therefore, to continue the criminal proceedings against the
appellants would be an abuse of process of law and the Court and
unnecessary harassment to the appellants, who seem to be the
purchasers of the property on payment of sale consideration. In
the above facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court
ought to have exercised its powers and discretion under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings
against the appellants. [Para 6][512-G-H; 513-A-D]
2. The criminal proceedings for offences under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, including the charge
sheet are hereby quashed and set aside in so far as the appellants
are concerned. [Para 7][513-D-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
136 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature in Allahabad in Application U/s 482 No.47634 of 2019.
Ashok Kumar Sharma, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advs.,
Parmanand Gaur, Vikalp Mudgal, Ekansh Bansal, Vaibhav Mishra, Ajay
Singh, Amit Kumar, Anurag Andley, Rahul Pratap Singh, Ms. Alka Sinha,
Abhishek Atrey, Advs. for the Appellants.
R. K. Raizada, AAG, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Shreesh Kumar
Mishra, Santosh Kumar, Ms. Priya Puri, Mukesh Rana, Ms. Mamta,
Ms. Smriti Sinha, Ranjay Dubey, Yati Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in an Application under Section 482 No. 47634 of 2019 by
which the High Court has dismissed the said application and has refused
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
511
to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., original accused Nos. 2 and 3 - appellants herein - Smt.
Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain have preferred the present appeal.
2. That on the basis of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
submitted by the respondent No.2 herein - original complainant, on the
diections of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, F.I.R.
dated 21.01.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 was registered
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar,
District Hapur against six accused persons including the appellants herein.
2.1 That it was stated in the F.I.R. that one Arun Kumar
Maheshwari (co-accused) had earlier misappropriated complainant's and
other persons' monies ostensibly towards deposit in one Kuber Mutual
Benefits Ltd. (in the year 1998-1999), and fled from Hapur without
returning the monies back due to which, the property in question was
attached by and was given in custody to the complainant - Pradeep
Singhal and one Bijendra Maheshwari, and now the accused have
fraudulently sold the property in question to the co-accused Smt. Rekha
Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain (appellants herein).
2.2 That the appellants herein and other co-accused approached
the High Court by way of the present application to quash the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said
application. Hence the accused, Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi
Jain have preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - accused
has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the High court has committed a grave error in not quashing the
criminal proceedings against the appellants.
3.1 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants that the main allegations are against one Arun Kumar
Maheshwari and others and that too for the offences of misappropriation
of the amount deposited between 1995-1999. It is submitted that the
appellants are the bona fide purchasers of the property in question, which
was neither an attached property nor a subject matter of any dispute at
the time it was purchased by the appellants.
3.2 It is submitted that on a bare reading of the allegations in the
F.I.R./complaint, no case is made out against the appellants for the
SMT. REKHA JAIN v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
offences alleged except the allegation that the appellants have purchased
the property, which is alleged to be an attached property. It is submitted
that neither any attachment was registered nor any attachment was in
existence at the time when the appellants purchased the property.
3.3 It is submitted that except the allegation that the appellants
have purchased the so called alleged attached property, there are no
further allegations at all by which it can be said that the appellants have
committed the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
3.4 It is therefore submitted that the criminal proceedings against
the appellants are nothing but an abuse of process of law and an
unnecessary harassment to them. Therefore, it is prayed to quash the
criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Shri R.K. Raizada, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State tried to oppose the present appeal by
submitting that after the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed
and therefore the present criminal proceedings be not quashed at this
stage. However, when a pointed question was asked to the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State about the actual role assigned
to the appellants and to point out any material against the appellants for
the offences alleged and other allegations, except the allegation that the
appellants have purchased the property, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State was not in a position to point out any other material
against the appellants by which, it can be said that any prima facie case
is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant
- respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit submitting that having
come to know the true facts, he has no objection if the criminal
proceedings against the appellants are quashed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and having perused the allegations in the complaint/
F.I.R., it can be seen that the main allegations are against the other coaccused - Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others. The only allegation
against the appellants is that they have purchased the property in question,
which was attached in the year 1998-1999 against the amounts due and
payable to the depositors, who had deposited in Kuber Mutual Benefits
Ltd. between 1998-1999. It is to be noted that the property has been
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
513
purchased by the appellants in the year 2019. Nothing is brought on
record that at the time when the property was purchased by the appellants,
the attachment was continued and/or any attachment was registered.
There are no allegations that the appellants are related to the other coaccused Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others. Even from the averments
and the allegations in the F.I.R., it cannot be said that there is any prima
facie case made out against the appellants for the offences under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The main allegations are against
other co-accused. Therefore, to continue the criminal proceedings against
the appellants would be an abuse of process of law and the Court and
unnecessary harassment to the appellants, who seem to be the purchasers
of the property on payment of sale consideration. In the above facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have exercised its
powers and discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have
quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The criminal proceedings
arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 for the offences under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur
including the charge sheet are hereby quashed and set aside in so far as
the appellants herein - Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain are
concerned.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
SMT. REKHA JAIN v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[M. R. SHAH, J.]