Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100611
Court No. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2146 of 2023
Revisionist :- Chhote Lal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief for Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division (Fast Track Court)/Violence against Women, Jaunpur in Criminal Complaint Case No.102 of 2022, (Chhote Lal vs. Muneel Kumar @ Kailash) under sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., whereby the complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed under section- 203 Cr.P.C.
3. The relevant facts of this revision are as below:-
The revisionist- Chhote Lal filed an application under section- 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegations in nutshell that respondent no.2 Muneel Kumar executed an agreement to sell in his favour regarding some land, but he did not execute the sale deed within the period prescribed in the agreement to sell despite request from the proposed purchaser; the revisionist/complainant filed a civil suit for the specific performance of contract; it is alleged in the application that despite the stay order of the court concerned, the proposed seller in connivance with respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 executed the sale deed of the same land in favour of respondent no.5- Anand Kumar; the respondent nos.3 and 4 stood as marginal witnesses in the sale deed.
The learned trial court heard the applicant and treated the application as complaint case; the case proceeded under sections- 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; the complainant was heard and an order dated 24.01.2023 has been passed under section- 203 Cr.P.C. dismissing the complaint. Now, the complainant is before this Court in this revision.
4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the order has been passed ignoring the evidence led on behalf of the complainant. It is further contended that prima-facie the offence under sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. has been made out; the order has been passed in an arbitrary manner against the weight of evidence on record.
5. I went through the material on record including the statements given by the complainant under section- 200 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the complainant has just reiterated the allegations as contained in the application under section- 156(3) Cr.P.C./complaint. In essence, it is said that despite the injunction order
1
passed by the civil court, the land was sold by Muneel Kumar to another person. From perusal of the impugned order, it seems that the trial court appreciated and evaluated the evidence and the material on record and found that the dispute between the two sides was essentially of civil nature and that no criminal offence prima-facie is made out.
6. There cannot be two opinions on the settled legal position that the Magistrate has to satisfy itself whether prima facie any case is made out or not, before proceeding to summon the accused persons. The meaning of prima facie case must be understood in the right perspective. There may be cases where the Magistrate finds that in literal sense of the words occurring in the statements the ingredients of an offence are there but he feels not so satisfied with them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-11 of the judgment passed in
Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another; (2013) 14 SCC 44, observed as below:-
"At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to "prima facie satisfy" whether there are "sufficient grounds to proceed" against the accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint."
7. The Supreme Court has used the pharse arriving at "prima facie satisfaction" whether there are "sufficient grounds to proceed"! Section 204 Cr.P.C. nowhere said that the Magistrate shall take cognizance and summon the accused if prima facie case is made out, instead Section 204 Cr.P.C. says that the Magistrate may take cognizance if there is sufficient ground for proceeding, hence in my view the prima facie case must be construed to mean "prima facie satisfaction" arrived at by the Magistrate.
8. In para-42 of the judgement given by Supreme Court in Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka, decided on 26.10.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1285 of 2021, the observation made in M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s. NEPC India Limited and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736 has been quoted as below:-
"42. It was also observed:
13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors.... There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involved any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
9. In the same judgement, the Apex Court referred to certain observation given by itself in Randheer Singh vs. The State of U.P. and Others,
2
decided on 02.09.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2021 saying that there can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transaction may have a criminal texture; however the High Court has to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In succeeding para-47, the Apex Court observed as below:-
"47. Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety."
10. I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order. Hence, this criminal revision is dismissed.
11. Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned immediately.
Order Date :- 10.5.2023 Saif
3