Anand Basotia v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4907 of 2025 Court No. - 91

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for opposite party No.2. None is present for opposite parties 3 and 4, despite sufficient service.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 10.6.2025, passed by learned CJM, Mau in Criminal Misc.Application No.639 of 2025 titled Anand Basotia vs. Mukesh Rajbhar and others, under Section 173(4) of BNSS, 2023, Police Station- Sarailakhansi, District-Mau is an illegal order. The opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 had committed the cognizable offence; they committed forgery and cheating with the complainant/revisionist. There are perverse finding by the learned trial court that the nature of dispute is regarding sale and purchase of land and its agreement. There is dispute of financial transactions.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied that annexure-1, khatauni, which is provided by opposite party No.2, is a false and forged document. He is not the owner of the land in question. He further submitted that opposite party No.2-Mukesh Rajbhar has executed an unregistered agreement for the sale and purchase of arazi-1156, area-898 kadi (16 manda), situate at Village-Bada Goan, Tehsil-Mohammadabad Gohna, District-Mau. The transaction was fixed as Rs.6,10,000/- per manda. At that time, the entire money was not available with the revisionist, therefore, the agreement was signed in between revisionist-Anand Basotia Versus

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajeev Sawhney

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gopal Krishna Pandey Anand Basotia

.....Revisionist(s)

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Opposite

Party(s)

1

and opposite party No.2-Mukesh Rajbhar dated 22.12.2023 for an area of 16 manda after payment of Rs.18 lakhs through cheque and cash on 4.10.2023. It was agreed that the revisionist/purchaser would arrange the balance-amount within three months and the sale-deed would be executed by opposite party No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied that opposite party No.2 also executed the agreement of the same land on 2.11.2022 with another person. He further submitted that he also executed another agreement dated 1.10.2022. It is further submitted that opposite party No.2 had issued a cheque of Rs.10 lakh and Rs.4 lakh, but they were not paid and returned as 'unpaid'. Hence, the revisionist has filed an application under Section 175 (3) BNSS, 2023 before the trial court. The revisionist further relied that as per report of Police Station-Sarailakhansi, the dispute is clear. The revisionist has committed a cognizable offence as well as forgery and cheating. The trial court has given perverse finding; therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has submitted that the matter in dispute, if any, is of civil nature. There are financial transactions took place between revisionist and opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has returned some amount and he will return the balance amount, if any. Opposite party No.2 submitted that Annexure-6, the report of concerned police station is also in between opposite parties 2, 3 and 4, namely, Mukesh Rajbhar, Ashwani Kumar Rai and Premlata Rai, respectively.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MEDCHL Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. and others; (2000) 3 SCC 269, when the complain was registered. The revisionist further relied that the ingredients of Section 450 Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. The revisionist further relies on the judgment in the case of Technofab Engineering Ltd. and another vs. Bengal Mills Stores Supply Co. and another; 2016 SCC OnLine SC 2069. Their defences that may be available, all facts/aspects when established during the trial may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At this stage, we are only CRLR No. 4907 of 2025

2

constrained with the question whether averments made in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not?

7. The revisionist shall specifically mention in his complaint that revisionist himself stated to be the owner in possession of the land in dispute and he provided khatauni in which his name was registered as sankramaniya bhumidhar. He further alleged that the said khatauni was forged, then after several discussions, revisionist seeks refund of his money Rs.31,50,000/- then Rs.4 lakh on 17.1.2024, Rs.2,40,000/- on 27.3.2024 and Rs.90,000/- on 7.5.2024. Opposite party No.2 has transferred an amount of Rs.8,03,000/- in the account of revisionist. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 has given him two cheques of his name of Rs.10 lakh and Rs.4 lakh dated 27.3.2024, which was stop-payment by Mukesh Rajbhar and the said cheque were dishonoured. Thereafter, on the payment of the moneys, opposite party No.2 is not refunding the amount.

8. Hence, in view of all the facts and circumstances, they are alleged to be financial transactions about the sale and purchase of the land. On the basis of the dispute, the said sale-deed was not executed. Whether the khataunies are forged or correct, it is the subject matter of trial court. The principle of caveat emptor came into existence. In the facts and contents of the complaint, the finding by the learned trial court that the matter in question is related with the sale and purchase of a land agreement. There is dispute between the parties about the financial-transactions. The nature of the dispute is civil. The revisionist has also disclosed this fact in his complaint that opposite party No.2 had given him two cheques of Rs.10 lakh and Rs.4 lakh, which had been dishonoured by 'stop-payment', where the specific remedy is available under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881.

9. In view of above, the dispute, if any, is of financial transactions and of the dishonour of the cheques. There is statutory remedy available for the recovery of money in the civil suit and by criminal complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques. No person would be provided this opportunity to give the civil dispute into colour of criminality. The findings given by the learned trial court in his impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal.

CRLR No. 4907 of 2025

3

10. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed, accordingly.

November 20, 2025

LN Tripathi CRLR No. 4907 of 2025

4

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

4