Sandeep Singh & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

It may be pertinent to note that opposite parties have not filed counter affidavit. In fact, Mr. B.M. Pingal, on 30.7.2018, gave statement before a coordinate Bench of this Court that he did not want to file counter affidavit in the matter. Hence, the averments made by the applicants remain unrebutted.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the chargesheet, cognizance order dated 20.6.2013 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4826/2013, State v. Sandeep Singh & Another, under Sections 352 and 504 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

The background facts of the case are that the applicant no. 1 is the real nephew and the applicant no. 2 is the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 2. Regarding the family property, an agreement was executed on 3.3.2012 between the respondent no. 2 and the applicants and other family members in which it was agreed that the respondent no. 2 shall pay rupees ten lakhs to each co-sharer in lieu of their shares over the property. At the time of entering into the agreement, the respondent no. 2 made payment of rupees five lakhs through cheque to each co-sharer including the applicants and as per the agreement, respondent no. 2 had to pay the remaining amount in the monthly installments of rupees ten thousand to each co-sharer for which he also issued the cheques. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 moved a complaint on 19.7.2012 under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against the applicants and other family members that the accused persons forcefully obtained his signatures on some stamp papers and the blank cheques. On this complaint, police report was called. Police reported that the allegations made in complaint by the respondent no. 2 are false. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 did not press his complaint and it was dismissed as not pressed on 15.10.2012. Later on 8.11.2012, respondent no. 2 lodged a non-cognizable report against the applicants under Sections 352 and 504 IPC and when the police did not take any action on it, the respondent no. 2 again moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 11.1.2013 with the prayer that the police be directed to register the FIR against the applicants as no action was taken by the police against the applicants on the non-cognizable report of the respondent no. 2. On this application, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar directed for investigation in the matter. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the applicants under Sections 352 and 504 IPC, pursuant to which the Court below has passed the impugned cognizance order.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicants contended that after entering into the agreement, the intention of the respondent no. 2 became dishonest and he wanted to get his cheques back and therefore he filed the complaint with a cooked up story. Subsequently, when the police filed its report, the complainant chose not to press his complaint and permitted it to be dismissed as not pressed. But after few days he lodged the non-cognizable report almost with the same allegations. Learned Counsel contends that once he did not press his earlier complaint, the learned Magistrate ought not to have passed the impugned cognizance order on the subsequent complaint of the respondent no. 2. Learned Counsel also contended that at best, the dispute, if any, is civil in nature and after giving colour to the same, false criminal proceedings have been initiated against the applicants and there is no material evidence against the applicants.

Learned State Counsel and the learned Counsel for the complainant argued that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present matter and after investigation, the police has filed the chargesheet.

In the present case, admittedly, the complainant had not pressed his first complaint and it was dismissed as not pressed. Police after investigation also did not find any substance in the said complaint. From the facts of the case, it is evident that after entering into the family settlement by way of executing the agreement, the intentions of the complainant turned dishonest and in order to avoid further payment as was agreed in the agreement, he filed these complaints against the applicants which is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of Court. Further, the alleged incident is of 5.11.2012, but the complainant lodged the non-cognizable report after three days on 8.11.2012 and there is no explanation for this delay. It also dents the prosecution story. Considering the materials on the record, I am of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the accused applicants.

It is settled law that the High Court should not unduly interfere in the application under Section 482 CrPC. But summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course and the process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ulterior purpose. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., 2014 (16) SCC 11, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where on the face of it, criminal proceedings are abuse of the process of Court, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised.

Consequently, the present application under Section 482 CrPC is allowed. Chargesheet, cognizance order dated 20.6.2013 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4826/2013, State v. Sandeep Singh & Another, under Sections 352 and 504 IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are hereby quashed.

Inform the Court concerned accordingly.