Ravindra Singh - (1.) THIS application has been filed by the applicants Kamlesh, Subhash and Ramveer Singh with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5249 of 2008, under Sections 406 and 420, I.P.C. pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-I, Saharanpur.
(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by O. P. No. 2, Rajveer Singh Rathi on 29.4.2008 at 11.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the month of February, 2006. THE F.I.R. was lodged in Case Crime No. 174 of 2008, under Section 406, I.P.C. at P. S. Kotwali Dehat, district Saharanpur alleging therein that there had been an agreement between the applicants No. 2 and 3 and O. P. No. 2 for purchasing of 160 bighas of land in lieu of Rs. 48,50,000. THE amount of Rs. 22 lacs was paid to them, its receipt was also given to the O.P. No. 2. THE rest of the money was settled to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. But the same land was sold to some other persons. THE matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge-sheet dated 11.6.2008 on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants under Sections 406 and 420, I.P.C. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava and Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that F.I.R. of this case is delayed by more than two years, it is having no explanation of delay. The O. P. No. 2 has never filed any suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act. It shows that the allegation made by O. P. No. 2 against the applicants are false and frivolous. It is also surprising that the date of the alleged agreement to sale has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. and no such agreement of sale has been produced by O.P. No. 2. The whole story is based on receipt dated 20.2.2006 of Rs. five lacs, the same is forged, on stamp paper of Rs. 10. It reveals that it has been allegedly made by 8.3.2006, whereas stamp paper by which the receipt has been made is purchased by O. P. No. 2 on 9.3.2006. The applicants No. 1 and 2 were having no right or title over the property in question subsequently the applicant No. 2 transferred the said property in favour of the applicants No. 1 and 3. The applicants No. 1 and 2 have purchased 102 beeghas land on 17.12.2006 from Rakesh Gupta, Komal Gupta, S. K. Jain, Jai Kamal Jain. Thereafter, on 20.3.2007 and 14.5.2007, applicants No. 1 and 2 executed a sale deed in favour of the Smt. Surinder Kaur, Secretary, Gyani Indar Singh, Human Development Education Society, Dehradun. The O.P. No. 2 is posted as Junior Engineer in the office of Delhi Development Authority who is running the business of sale and purchase of land also. The O. P. No. 2 was accused in purchasing the land in question and he not transferred the property to the applicants No. 1 and 2 but refused the same. Thereafter, the story of the present case has been concocted on which without doing the fair investigation the charge-sheet has been submitted, the same may be quashed.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that on the basis of the allegation made in the F.I.R. and the material collected by the INvestigating Officer prima facie offence under Sections 406 and 420, I.P.C. is made out. There is no illegality in the submission of the charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate concerned has not committed any error in taking the cognizance against the applicants, therefore, the prayer for quashing the proceeding of the above mentioned case is refused. However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged by O. P. No. 2 which discloses the commission of the offence, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet dated 11.6.2008 after recording the statement of Rajveer Singh and Rakesh Chauhan who have supported the prosecution story. According to their statements offence under Sections 406 and 420, I.P.C. is made out. The learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants vide order dated 7.4.2008 on the basis of the charge-sheet. There is no illegality in the order dated 7.4.2008, and there is no illegality in the prosecution of the applicants. The cases cited by learned counsel for the applicants Ram Biraji Devi and another v. Umesh Kumar Singh and another, 2006 (3) JIC 281 : 2006 (2) ACR 1545 (SC) ; Indra Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008 (1) JIC 737 : 2008 (1) ACR 586 (SC) ; Suresh v. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and another, 2005 (2) JIC 706 : 2005 (1) ACR 1010 (SC) and Suneet Gupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma and others, 2008 (3) JIC 382 : 2008 (3) ACR 2788 (SC), in support of his contention are not applicable in the present case because the facts of the present case are entirely distinguished with the above criminal cases. There is no ground for quashing the proceedings of the above mentioned case and there is no illegality in the prosecution of the applicants. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the above mentioned case is refused.;