- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jai Prakash Rai v. State Of U.P.
Factual and Procedural Background
This petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) seeking to quash complaint Case No. 1833 of 1986 pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2 on 29.9.1986 alleging that the applicants committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 412, 420, 465, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). Following evidence produced under Sections 290 and 202 Cr. P.C., the Magistrate summoned the accused to stand trial on 24.2.1987.
The complaint arose from a transaction involving the purchase of a plot of land by opposite party No. 3, daughter of the complainant, from a society managed by the applicants as president and secretary. The complainant alleged fraudulent conduct by the applicants in failing to transfer the plot to his daughter despite payment, and subsequently transferring it to a third party with interpolations in the sale deed.
The applicants contended that the matter had been settled as the complainant had applied for and received a full refund of the money paid, and that the complaint was filed to harass them. The refund was acknowledged by the complainant on behalf of his daughter, marking a full and final settlement. The applicants sought quashing of the complaint on these grounds.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complaint filed by the complainant amounts to an abuse of the process of the court given the full refund and settlement between the parties.
- Whether there exists a prima facie case to summon the accused for offences under Sections 406, 412, 420, 465, 467, and 471 I.P.C. based on the facts and evidence presented.
- Whether the interpolations and alterations in the sale deed, after refund of money and termination of contract, constitute offences under the relevant sections of the I.P.C. and registration and stamp laws.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants' Arguments
- The complaint was filed solely to harass the applicants despite the matter being fully and finally settled between the parties.
- The complainant suppressed material facts, notably the refund of the entire amount paid to the society, which ended the contractual relationship.
- The refund was made on the complainant’s application and was acknowledged as full and final settlement, thus negating any continuing offence.
- Proceedings based on the complaint would amount to abuse of the court’s process and should be quashed.
Opposite Parties' Arguments
- They admitted the refund application and receipt but contended that the offences under Section 420 I.P.C. were recommitted by the accused.
- They also alleged that offences under Sections 465, 467, and 471 I.P.C. were committed due to interpolations and alterations in the sale deed executed in favour of opposite party No. 3.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the factual matrix and documentary evidence, including the refund application by the complainant and the receipt acknowledging full and final settlement. It was undisputed that the contract to execute the sale deed was terminated upon refund of the entire amount by the society before the society acquired title to the plot.
The court noted that although a sale deed was executed on stamp paper, it was not presented for registration as the society did not have title at that time. Later, the society sold the plot to a third party, allegedly altering the earlier sale deed. Proceedings under the Registration Act and Stamp Act were pending in relation to those alterations.
The court held that since the contract had ended by mutual consent with refund of the money, the original sale deed was no longer in force, and interpolations in that deed could not sustain criminal charges under Sections 465, 467, and 471 I.P.C.
Further, the court observed that the complainant withheld the vital fact of refund from the Magistrate, and allowing the complaint to proceed would amount to abuse of the court process. Accordingly, the court found no justification to continue the proceedings under Section 420 I.P.C. or other sections alleged.
Holding and Implications
The court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings in complaint Case No. 1833 of 1986 pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
The direct effect of this decision is the termination of the criminal complaint against the applicants. No new precedent was established, and the ruling is confined to the facts of this case, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure and the effect of settlement and refund on criminal liability in contractual disputes.
V.N Mehrotra, J.:— This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C or quashing the complaint Case No. 1833 of 1986 pending in the court of special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
2. The facts of the case are that opposite arty No. 2 filed a complaint before the Magistrate concerned on 29.9.86 asserting chat the opposite parties, who are the resent applicants, had committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 412, 420, 465, 467 and 471, I.P.C The complaint produced evidence under Section 290 and 202, Cr. P.C and on the basis of the same the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 24.2.1987 summoning he accused persons to stand their trial before him.
3. In this petition the applicants have asserted that the complainant had filed a complaint only to harass the applicants even after the matter had been fully and finally settled between the parties. It has also been asserted that the complainant had supressed material facts while filing the complaint before the Magistrate and that prima-facie there was no case for summoning the accused persons to continue the proceedings against them. It will be proper to examine the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint, the complainant was in judicial service and was posted at Allahabad for some years. The opposite party No. 3 Smt. Asha Verma is the daughter of the complainant, she was in need of some land for building her house at Allahabad. The applicants were colonisers. They were contacted by the complainant, through one Tirath Raj Lal. They assured that they will provide a plot to opposite party No. 3, Smt. Asha Verma, and she became a member of the Society on the assurance that she will get a plot in or about the year 1972, She deposited money with the Society through the accused persons, who are president and Secretary respectively of that Society. The accused persons undertook to make plot No. 3 available to opposite party No. 3 Smt. Asha Verma. The said plot was allegedly acquired by the Society and they asked the complainant to make the necessary deposit.
4. The opposite party No. 3 deposited a sum of rupees thirty six thousand and odd for which a receipt dated 15.2.85 was issued by applicant, No. 2 and accounting was also done and it was found that an amount exceeding Rs. 51,000/- was to be paid by the opposite party No. 2. Thus the opposite party No. 3 further paid an amount of Rs. 21,000/- i.e Rs. 51,599.25 in all to the accused persons. Stamp papers were purchased and transfer deed was executed but it was not presented for registration at that time, as it appeared that the society had no transferable right in the plot till that time as they had not till then acquired a registered transfer deed in their favour. It was asserted that this act on the part of the accused persons was fraudulent. It is further asserted that the complainant then enquired from the Society as to when the transfer deed could be got executed and registered. After prolonged talk the accused persons assured and agreed that the transfer deed shall be presented for registration and got registered when they had obtained a registered transfer deed in favour of the Society and the contract shall till then remain subsisting and they shall not party with or transfer the plot to any one except Smt. Asha Verma. Relying on these assurance the complainant kept quiet for sometime in the hope that the society will become entitled to the plot and they will execute the sale deed as promised by them. However, as the accused had no intention to convey the said plot to Smt. Asha Verma, but were interested only in obtaining the money they secret ally and without informing the complainant Smt. Asha Verma, transferred the plot to one Sri Vinod Kumar Rai by materially ??? the sale deed in question and making interpolations in it. It is asserted that due to these acts the accused persons have committed the offence mentioned above.
5. The applicants have filed affidavit alleging that on 6.4.1986 complainant himself moved an application to the Secretary of the Society to return the money with interest as his daughter did not want to purchase the plot of No. 1. Annexure ‘2’ is the copying that application. The applicants have further asserted that the entire money was paid back to Smt. Asha Verma through complainant by order dated 9.4.1987 and a receipt for the same was issued on the same day by the complainant on behalf of Smt. Asha Verma mentioning that he has received the amount in full and final settlement of his account. It has also been contended that in order to harass the applicants the complainant filed complaint on 29.9.90 concealing this vital fact and obtained order for summoning the applicants. It has been contended that the proceedings will amount to abuse of the process of the court and in view of the deliberate concealment by the complainant the same should be quashed.
6. The opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 have admitted they had moved an application for repayment of the entire amount and said that they had on 9.4.86 actually received that amount. It is, however, contended that the offence under Section 420, I.P.C had been recommitted by the accused persons and the offences under Sections 465, 467 and 471, I.P.C They had also committed due to the interpolations and alterations made in the sale-deed executed in favour of Smt. Asha Verma.
7. I have considered the arguments by the learned counsel and persued the material produced before me. It is undisputed that money was deposited with the present applicants in connection with a contract to execute sale deed in favour of Smt. Asha Verma. In respect of the plot in question. Actually a sale-deed was executed on stamp paper but due to the fact that by that time the society, of which the applicants are president and Secretary respectively, had not acquired title to that plot, the same was not presented for registration. The contention by the complainant himself shows that at that time it was agreed that when the society acquires title to that plot, the sale-deed will be presented for registration. However, it is clear from the material on record that even before the society could acquire title to the plot, the complainant moved an application on behalf of his daughter Smt. Asha Verma praying that the entire amount deposited by her should be paid back. On this application the Society actually refunded the entire amount on 9.4.86 In the receipt (Annexure 3), which was signed by the complainant on behalf of Smt. Asha Verma, it was mentioned that the amount in question was received “in full and final settlement of my account”. It will be clear from these documents that the contract between the parties thus came to an end as the complainant got his money back from the society. Later on, the society acquired the title to the plot and sold it to a third person. It, however, utilised the same sale-deed which had been earlier executed in favour of Smt. Asha Verma by changing the name of the purchaser and the amount etc. It is admitted that in respect of the same, proceedings under the registration Act and the stamp Act were pending. As is provided by Section 14 of the Stamp Act in case where a second instrument is written in a stamp paper the same shall be treated as unstamped and, obviously, proceedings regarding the same could be initiated against the executant under the stamp Act. In case interpolations and additions are made, the registration authority could also have jurisdiction to take necessary action in the matter. However, considering the fact that the agreement between the parties came to an end on 9.4.1986 by the refund of the entire amount by the Society on the application made by the complainant on behalf of Smt. Asha Verma, it could not be said that the sale deed which was earlier sought to be executed in her favour still remained in force and interpolation made in the same could entitle the complainant, or Smt. Asha Verma to file complaint for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 465, 467, 471 etc.
8. In the present case the complainant, has for some reason or the other, with held this vital fact from the Magistrate concerned, while filing the complaint against the applicants. The above mentioned facts indicate that the parties have come to terms. It was found that the society could not get the sale deed registered in favour of Smt. Asha Verma as no registered deed had been executed in her favour by that time. The complainant received the entire money back from the Society and thus the agreement between the parties came to end by mutual consent. In view of these facts it will amount to the abuse of the process of the court if the complainant is permitted to proceed against the applicants for the alleged commission of offence under Section 420, I.P.C etc.
9. This petition is, in the circumstances, allowed and all proceedings in complaint Case No. 1833 of 1986 Harish Chand Lal v. Sita Ram pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad are quashed.
10. Petition Allowed.
Alert