9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners applicants-original accused Nos.9 to 14, seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, inter alia, praying for the following main relief: "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the Criminal Case No.6364 of 2018 filed before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, qua the petitioners" 5. The case of the complainant can be summarized thus: 5.1. It is alleged in the Criminal Case No. 6364 of 2018 that the respondent No. 2 - complainant and his wife were owners and in possession of agricultural land of Account No. 377, Block - Survey No. 185 admeasuring 0-28-33 sq. mtrs. of Village Memnagar, Taluk Ghatlodia of District & Sub-District Ahmedabad-13 (City Taluka) (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property No. 1") and agricultural land of Account No. 378, Block Survey No. 186/1 admeasuring 0-19-28 square meter of village Memnagar, Taluka Ahmedabad West, District & Sub- District Ahmedabad-13 (City Taluka) and (hereinafter referred to as "the Suit Property No. 2"). It is further alleged that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil Suit No. 207 of 2018 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). Moreover, in the said proceedings, the respondent No. 2- complainant and his wife have impleaded the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 herein as defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and the original owners of the land as defendant Nos. 7 to 21. Furthermore, the partners of the partnership firm - Shri Siddhivinayak Associates who are arraigned as original accused Nos. 1 to 8 in the present Criminal Case are not impleaded as party respondents in the said Suit and no relief's is sought against them. (ii) That the Suit Property No. 1 - Agricultural land of Account No. 377 and Suit Property No. 2 - Agricultural land of Account No. 378 were originally owned by 2 group of persons, i.e., Defendant Nos. 7 to 15 and Defendant Nos. 16 to 21 respectively as impleaded in Special Civil Suit No. 207 of 2018. From the aforesaid lands, for Suit Property No. 1 admeasuring 3388 square yards, it is claimed that the original owners, i.e., Defendant No. 7 to 15 in Civil Suit executed an agreement to sell dated 26/02/1996 for 2260 square yards in favour of Respondent No. 2- Complainant and 3 other persons. Moreover, it is further claimed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein and thereafter, on 20/11/2015 itself, the original owners executed Registered Sale Deed, which came be Registered at Serial No. 1174 in favour of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein. In view thereof, the transaction of the land Survey No. 185 - Suit Property No. 1 is complete and the Petitioner No. 2 and 3 have become the owners and are in possession of the said land Survey No. 185-Suit Property No. 1 and no other person has any right, title and interest in the said property. (vi) Subsequently, vide orders dated 06/12/2016 and 24/03/2017, the petitioners obtained permission for utilizing the aforesaid lands for Non-Agricultural use and thereafter they also obtained permission for development and construction on the said lands. Moreover, the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 also paid Betterment Charges and Municipal Corporation Tax for the said lands. Thereafter, vide 2 Registered Sale Deeds dated 15/06/2018, the Petitioners 2 to 6 sold the aforesaid lands to a partnership Firm - SKD's Surya Build Bands (LLP). (vii) In the meanwhile and after pocketing substantial amount of consideration as mentioned above for relinquishing, assigning and transferring whatsoever rights they had in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever rights they had in the said lands after execution of the Cancellation and Assignment Deeds, Possession Deed and subsequent Registered Sale Deeds by the original owners and therefore, the agreement of purposed sale of land is not a legal and valid agreement. (x) On 28/06/2018, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 also replied to the aforesaid notice dated 06/06/2018 and denied the contentions and averments in toto. The Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 in their reply further clarified that the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 have not issued the said cheques. Furthermore, the Petitioners also informed the Respondent No. 2- Complainant and his wife that the transaction between the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 and the Respondent No. 2- Complainant and his wife is complete after execution of the Cancellation and Assignment Deeds, Possession Deed and the subsequent Registered Sale Deeds by the original owners. (xi) However, on 19/07/2018 the respondent No. 2 - complainant preferred the aforesaid Criminal Case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) mala fidely and with an ulterior motive to extort money from the petitioners. The respondent No. 2- complainant also arraigned the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not in dispute that petitioners are neither the partners of a partnership firm nor the signatories of the instruments in question and the said fact is clearly found out from the complaint filed by the complainant. He further submits that when the petitioners are neither the partners of the partnership firm nor the signatories of the instruments in question, the ultimate chances of conviction of the petitioners are bleak and continuance of the criminal prosecution against the petitioners is nothing but sheer abuse of process of the Court. 7.4. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim submits that in view of the aforesaid factual aspects, it becomes ex-facie evident and apparent that respondent No. 2- complainant and his wife and the other persons executed agreements and thereby relinquished their rights and assigned and transferred whatsoever rights they had in the Suit Properties in favour of the petitioners herein after taking substantial consideration as mentioned in the said deeds. Moreover, there is no dispute qua the said agreements. He, therefore, submits that present petitions may be allowed by quashing the proceedings of criminal cases instituted against the present petitioners by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in the complaint and that he is really not concerned with the issuance of the cheque, he must in order to persuade the High Court to quash the process either furnish some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate his contention. He must make out a case that making him stand the trial would be an abuse of process of court. The complaint cannot be quashed merely on the ground that apart from the basic averment no particulars are given in the complaint about his role. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and with a view to quash the proceedings of the criminal case petitioners have to furnish some sterling incontrovertible material which ultimately would substantiate the claim of the petitioners. Here, in the case on hand, if allegations levelled against the petitioners are to be seen, in that event, their actual role and active participation in the commission of crime is clearly found out. Hence, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order of issuance of process against the petitioners and the said order is just, fair and based upon the sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. xxx xxx xxx 23. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction. (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge." 12. Thus, if the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaints filed und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
