Smt. Rekha Jain vs State of Uttar Pradesh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2022

Smt. Rekha Jain and Anr. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in an Application under Section 482 No. 47634 of 2019 by

which the High Court has dismissed the said application and has refused

to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C., original accused Nos. 2 and 3 – appellants herein – Smt.

Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain have preferred the present appeal.

2. That on the basis of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

submitted by the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant, on the

directions of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur,

F.I.R. dated 21.01.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 was

registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S.

1

Hapur Nagar, District Hapur against six accused persons including the

appellants herein.

2.1 That it was stated in the F.I.R. that one Arun Kumar Maheshwari

(co-accused) had earlier misappropriated complainant's and other

persons’ monies ostensibly towards deposit in one Kuber Mutual

Benefits Ltd. (in the year 1998-1999), and fled from Hapur without

returning the monies back due to which, the property in question was

attached by and was given in custody to the complainant - Pradeep

Singhal and one Bijendra Maheshwari, and now the accused have

fraudulently sold the property in question to the co-accused Smt. Rekha

Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain (appellants herein).

2.2 That the appellants herein and other co-accused approached the

High Court by way of the present application to quash the criminal

proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the

impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said

application. Hence the accused, Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi

Jain have preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – accused

has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the High court has committed a grave error in not quashing the

criminal proceedings against the appellants.

2

3.1 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants that the main allegations are against one Arun Kumar

Maheshwari and others and that too for the offences of misappropriation

of the amount deposited between 1995-1999. It is submitted that the

appellants are the bona fide purchasers of the property in question,

which was neither an attached property nor a subject matter of any

dispute at the time it was purchased by the appellants.

3.2 It is submitted that on a bare reading of the allegations in the

F.I.R./complaint, no case is made out against the appellants for the

offences alleged except the allegation that the appellants have

purchased the property, which is alleged to be an attached property. It is

submitted that neither any attachment was registered nor any

attachment was in existence at the time when the appellants purchased

the property.

3.3 It is submitted that except the allegation that the appellants have

purchased the so called alleged attached property, there are no further

allegations at all by which it can be said that the appellants have

committed the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and

120-B IPC.

3.4 It is therefore submitted that the criminal proceedings against the

appellants are nothing but an abuse of process of law and an

3

unnecessary harassment to them. Therefore, it is prayed to quash the

criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Shri R.K. Raizada, learned Additional Advocate General appearing

on behalf of the State tried to oppose the present appeal by submitting

that after the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and therefore

the present criminal proceedings be not quashed at this stage.

However, when a pointed question was asked to the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the State about the actual role assigned to the

appellants and to point out any material against the appellants for the

offences alleged and other allegations, except the allegation that the

appellants have purchased the property, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State was not in a position to point out any other material

against the appellants by which, it can be said that any prima facie case

is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant –

respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit submitting that having

come to know the true facts, he has no objection if the criminal

proceedings against the appellants are quashed.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties and having perused the allegations in the

complaint/F.I.R., it can be seen that the main allegations are against the

other co-accused – Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others. The only

4

allegation against the appellants is that they have purchased the

property in question, which was attached in the year 1998-1999 against

the amounts due and payable to the depositors, who had deposited in

Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. between 1998-1999. It is to be noted that the

property has been purchased by the appellants in the year 2019.

Nothing is brought on record that at the time when the property was

purchased by the appellants, the attachment was continued and/or any

attachment was registered. There are no allegations that the appellants

are related to the other co-accused Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others.

Even from the averments and the allegations in the F.I.R., it cannot be

said that there is any prima facie case made out against the appellants

for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

The main allegations are against other co-accused. Therefore, to

continue the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be an

abuse of process of law and the Court and unnecessary harassment to

the appellants, who seem to be the purchasers of the property on

payment of sale consideration. In the above facts and circumstances of

the case, the High Court ought to have exercised its powers and

discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the

criminal proceedings against the appellants.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by

5

the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The criminal

proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 for the offences

under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Hapur

Nagar, District Hapur including the charge sheet are hereby quashed

and set aside in so far as the appellants herein – Smt. Rekha Jain and

Smt. Minakshi Jain are concerned.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

FEBRUARY 03, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

6

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले