C482/46/2012 of RIYASAT ALI AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR

C482 No.46 of 2012

U. C. Dhyani, J.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for applicants.

Mr. Nandan Arya, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Prem Kaushal, Brief Holder present for the State.

None is present for the respondent no.2, despite service of notice.

By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the chargesheet dated 22.05.2007, summoning order dated 27.03.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.1659/2008, State vs. Kurban Ali & others, under Sections 147, 420, 406, 504, 506, 323 IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants are bona fide purchasers for value in good faith, who had verified the names of Kurban Ali, Rizwan Ali and Irfan Ali in revenue records and thereafter, the sale deed was executed. They were bona fide purchasers of the land in question and had become owners of the property in question. Learned counsel for the applicants also contended that no offence has been committed by them; the dispute is purely of civil nature, which cannot be decided by the criminal court and the ownership of the property in question can only be decided by the revenue court. Since the ownership of the disputed land cannot be declared by criminal court in favour of respondent no.2, therefore, in any circumstance, the criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot succeed. It would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceeding and direct the applicants to go through prolonged procedure of trial. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceeding in this case would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Since the possibility of conviction of applicants is bleak and continuation of criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal proceedings.

Since the private respondent has not turned up before this Court despite service of notice upon him, therefore, it appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the applicants.

There seems to be substance in the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicants.

It will be futile exercise to keep petition under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. pending before this Court.

The Court can intervene in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, 2013 (1) SCC (Crl) 986 and Inder Mohan Gosami and another vs. State

of Uttarakhand and others, (2008) 1 SCC (Crl) 259.

The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The chargesheet dated 22.05.2007, summoning order dated 27.03.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.1659/2008, State vs. Kurban Ali & others, under Sections 147, 420, 406, 504, 506, 323 IPC are hereby quashed.

Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided in the absence of the respondent no.2, therefore, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.

Dated 27.06.2017

Rawat

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)