The division judge bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar of the apex court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of UP & Ors held that a bare perusal of the complaint on the basis of which FIR came to be registered at the instance of the de-facto complainant/second respondent does not disclose any act of the present appellants or their participation in the commission of crime.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that according to the complainant the disputed property was purchased in the name of the minor and through the ostensible owner, the de-facto complainant purchased the property by registered sale deed. However, prior to that the settlement took place between the family members and the memorandum of understanding was executed between the parties and in terms of the MOU the house came in the share of Vinod Kumar Gupta and while the Original Suit filed at the instance of Vinod Kumar Gupta was pending adjudication, the ostensible owner executed a registered sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant and according to the informant/second respondent, who is the vendee of the aforementioned registered sale deed, possession by title in favour of Shravan Kumar Gupta over the house in dispute came to be transferred in his favour and possession of the same was also handed over to de-facto complainant.
The defacto complainant alleged that he was dispossessed from the subject property and the complaint was made with the concerned magistrate. Thereafter, the FIR was registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447, 386 IPC.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the high court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction for quashing the criminal complaint. It was also submitted that no commission of the offense was made out against the appellant.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court relied upon the judgments titled Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others. The apex court held that a bare perusal of the complaint on the basis of which FIR came to be registered at the instance of the de-facto complainant/second respondent does not disclose any act of the present appellants or their participation in the commission of crime. They are neither concerned with the registered sale deed nor the later sale deed executed in favour of the de-facto complainant by Shravan Kumar Gupta, nor in possession of the subject property nor are parties to the civil proceedings and it is not the case of the complainant that either the appellants have played any active/passive role either in scribing the document or are facilitators or witness to the document in reference to which the complaint has been made for cheating and committing forgery or have played any role in delivery of possession of the subject property in question. Furthermore, the High Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal complaint and proceedings in consequence thereof qua the present appellants.
CASE NAME- Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of UP & Ors
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).39 of 2022)
CORUM- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
DATE- 28.11.22
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments