C482/611/2016 of Rajni Verma Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND,THROUGH SECRETARY IN THE DEPARTMENT

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 611 of 201608 August, 2025

Rajni Verma ……..Applicant

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Another

……..Respondents----------------------------------------------------------------------Presence:-

Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay, learned for the applicant.

Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

The present application under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the chargesheet and the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 743 of 2016, as well as the entire proceedings of the said case.

2. Learned senior counsel for the applicant

would submit that respondent no.3 had sold piece of land measuring 0.09 acre of Khasra No. 658/1, situated at Village Kudkhawala, District Dehradun,

2025:UHC:7035

through registered sale deed dated 15.06.1987 in favour of Smt. Manju Singh, wife of Gyanendra Pal Singh; that, on the basis of the said sale deed, her name was recorded in the revenue records on 26.02.2009; that, thereafter, on 17.01.2014, Smt. Manju Singh executed registered sale deed of the same land in favour of the applicant, whose name was mutated in the revenue records on 13.05.2014. 3. Learned senior counsel would further submit that respondent no.3, the real uncle of the applicant, bore animosity towards the applicant’s father; that, with view to harass the family, he lodged an FIR against Smt. Manju Singh, her husband, and members of the applicant’s family, including the father, mother, brother, and sister of the applicant, alleging that an incorrect property had been sold through the sale deed dated 17.01.2014; that, the said FIR was challenged in criminal writ petition, in which Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 08.08.2014, stayed further proceedings. During investigation, the police found the allegations against the applicant’s father, mother, brother, and sister to be false and filed the

2025:UHC:7035

chargesheet only against the applicant, Smt. Manju Singh, and her husband.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant pointed out that while respondent no.3 himself had executed the 1987 sale deed in favour of Smt. Manju Singh and admitted in his written statement in Civil Suit No. 48 of 2015 that the khasra number in that deed was wrongly recorded as 658 instead of 659, he nevertheless lodged criminal case on the same issue. It was contended that this conduct amounts to blowing hot and cold. He would further submit that the dispute is purely civil in nature, concerning title and description of property, and is already pending before the civil court; that, the criminal proceedings have been initiated solely to pressurize the applicant’s family; that, the applicant is bona fide purchaser and there is no allegation of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.

5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant argued that the investigating officer acted in cursory manner without appreciating the civil nature of the dispute, and that the learned

2025:UHC:7035

Magistrate mechanically issued summons without due application of mind.

6. Learned senior counsel for the applicant in

support of his case has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, holding that summoning an accused is serious matter requiring judicial application of mind; that, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where quashing was held permissible if allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence; that, in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, affirming the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process; and in Urmila Devi & Ors. v. Balram & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1574, where the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings in civil inheritance dispute.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the application, contending that the investigation was properly conducted and the trial court had rightly taken cognizance. However, he conceded

that the dispute appears to be of civil nature.

8. On perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the dispute pertains to property description and alteration of khasra numbers. Respondent no.3’s own written statement in the civil suit acknowledges that the wrong khasra number was mentioned in the 1987 sale deed; that, there is no allegation that the applicant ever dishonestly induced the complainant to part with money or property, necessary ingredient of offences under Sections 420, 468, and 120-B IPC. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739, and Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha, (1973) 2 SCC 823, mere non-performance or dispute over property description, without fraudulent intent from inception, gives rise at best to civil liability and not criminal culpability. 10. In the present case, the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not make out the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The dispute is essentially civil in nature, camouflaged as criminal prosecution to exert pressure upon the

applicant.

11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that it is fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law.

12. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

The chargesheet, the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 743 of 2016 (State v. Manju Singh & Ors.), and all consequential proceedings so far as they relate to the applicant, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

Mamta

(ALOK MAHRA, J.)

08.08.2025.