Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11308 of 2006 Applicant :- Budhi Ram And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Second Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 12.4.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.595 of 2004 (Khaliquinnisha Vs. Budhi Ram and others) under Sections- 420, 467, 468 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Chilhiya, District- Siddharth Nagar, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Notice was serviced upon the opposite party no.2, but no counter has been filed either by opposite party no.2 or by learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that complaint has been filed on 1.3.2004 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants, which was registered as Complaint Case No.595 of 2004, under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 506 IPC in which summoning order dated 12.4.2006 has been issued against the applicants under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 506 IPC. The ground taken in the complaint is that keeping the opposite party no.2 in dark and in convenience with record keeper, forge agreement to sell dated 10.1.2001 and sale deed dated 30.7.2001 got executed from her in favour of the applicants.
He further submitted that opposite party no.2 has filed Suit No.91 of 2005 on 25.2.2005 for the cancellation of agreement to sell dated 10.1.2001 as well as sale deed dated 30.7.2001, which was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.10.2018. Against the said order, opposite party no.2 has preferred First Appeal, which was also dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 4.10.2012 and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2018.
In the second Supplementary affidavit, it is clearly stated that against the dismissal of suit, no Second Appeal has been filed by the opposite party no.2. He further submitted that the ground taken in the complaint has lost the effect in light of dismissal of suit for cancellation of agreement to sell dated 10.1.2001 as well as sale deed dated 30.7.2001 vide order dated 25.2.2005 and affirmed by the Appellate Court dated 4.10.2012, therefore, complaint is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the fact raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
I have perused the complaint dated 1.3.2004 as well as plaint of the Suit No.91 of 2005 and First Appeal. By perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that complaint was filed on the ground that agreement to sell dated 10.1.2001 as well as sale deed dated 30.7.2001 got executed fraudulently, which was subject matter of Suit No. 91 of 2005 and ultimately the suit was dismissed and dismissal order was affirmed by the Appellate Court.
Under such facts and circumstances, summoning order dated 12.4.2006 and criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.595 of 2004 (Khaliquinnisha Vs. Budhi Ram and others) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the application is Allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Junaid