IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.631/2006 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Bhupendra Singh Adhikari …….Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others ……Respondents Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA, for the State. Mr. H.C. Pathak, Advocate, for the private respondent no. 3. 19th December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By means of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, moved under Section 482 CrPC, the prayer has been advanced to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 298/2006, State v. Bhupendra Singh Adhikari, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora. 2. The controversy involved in this petition arises out of an unregistered agreement to sale dated 21.10.1997 entered into between petitioner Bhupendra Singh Adhikari (proposed vendor) and Vijaypal Jain (proposed purchaser) in respect of a piece of land ad measuring 14 mutthis (175 sq. yd.) situated in Khata No. 9, Khet No. 2828, in village Naini, Patwari Circle Malli Riuni, Tehsil Ranikhet, District Almora for a sale consideration of rupees two lakhs. As per this agreement, the sale deed had to be executed by 1.3.1998. Out of the total sale consideration of rupees two lakhs, one lakh was paid at the time of agreement and remaining one lakh was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. A small old house and a little shop existed over the 2 property, in question. The shop was occupied by one Pratap Singh, son of Ratan Singh. The possession of entire subject matter of agreement was handed over by Bhupendra Singh Adhikari to Mr. Jain on 21.10.1997 itself. When the sale deed could not be executed as per the terms of the agreement, then Mr. Jain sent a notice, in the form of a letter dated 18.3.1998, asking Bhupendra Singh to execute the sale deed by presenting himself on 15.4.1998 in the court campus, Ranikhet. 3. Having received the above letter, the applicant petitioner allegedly reached on 15.4.1998, as asked by Mr. Jain, in the office of Registrar, Ranikhet, but Mr. Jain did not reach there. So, Mr. Bhupendra Singh written a letter on that date itself i.e. on 15.4.1998 informing his presence on that day in the court campus, Ranikhet, and recording the absence of Mr. Jain. 4. A booklet known as kisan bahi was lying in the office of Sub-Registrar eversince November, 1997 when a portion of property, in question, was sold to Pratap Singh by Mr. Bhupendra Singh Adhikari. So, he moved an application to Sub-Registrar requesting him to return the said kisan bahi to him because he need the same as he had to transfer his land further to Mr. Jain. The certified copy of this application has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the petition, and the purpose of annexing the same is to prove his presence on 15.4.1998 in the Sub-Registrar office. 5. Anyhow, as stated above, the sale deed could not be executed. So, Mr. Jain lodged an FIR on 6.4.2006, bearing Crime No. 134/2006 against Mr. Bhupendra Singh Adhikari for the offence of Section 420 IPC. The police concluded the investigation by way of submitting the 3 impugned chargesheet no. 8/2006 for the offence of Section 420 IPC against Mr. Adhikari. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it can be observed, as is also the settled position of law, that pendency of a civil litigation between the parties by itself is not sufficient to exonerate the person concerned from the criminal liability. But having said that, in the present controversy, the dispute between Mr. Bhupendra Singh and Mr. Jain is of purely civil nature. There was no criminal element of cheating in the intention of Mr. Bhupendra Singh Adhikari while entering into an agreement to sale dated 21.10.1997 with Mr. Jain for the reason that the complete possession of the property, in question, was handed over to Mr. Jain by Mr. Adhikari on the date of agreement itself, while complete sale consideration was not paid to Mr. Adhikari. This fact has also been admitted by Mr. Jain. Secondly, Mr. Jain was a serving Senior Indian Police Service Officer at the time of entering into the said agreement to sale with Mr. Adhikari, and he subsequently retired from the post of Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and being the top cop of the law enforcing agency of the State, Mr. Jain was supposed to know the basic rules and regulations of transferring an immovable property after entering into the agreement thereof. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 envisages that no immovable property can be agreed to be transferred by way of unregistered deed. In the circumstances, having admittedly taken complete possession of the property, in question, by Mr. Jain from Mr. Adhikari on the date of entering into the agreement was itself questionable. 7. Mr. Jain has filed a notice dated 6.6.2000 as Annexure No. 1 to his supplementary counter affidavit, 4 which was issued by Mr. Jain, through his Advocate, to Mr. Adhikari warning him that in case the sale deed was not executed in compliance of the term as stated in the said unregistered agreement dated 21.10.1997, then he would be filing a suit for specific performance of contract, and that was the only remedy which was hardly available, if at all, to Mr. Jain against Mr. Adhikari. 8. It has been contended on behalf of Mr. Jain that a little portion of the house was in the form of a shop, which was occupied by Mr. Pratap Singh. In fact, this shop was exchanged in lieu of some consideration by Mr. Adhikari to one Ratan Singh, father of Pratap Singh, and it is alleged that at the time of entering into the agreement, Mr. Adhikari concealed this fact. So, it amounts to cheating. This argument is not acceptable because lion’s share of the property, in question, was in the form of land having an old house constructed over there. Only a little room was in the form of a shop, which was occupied by Pratap Singh and Mr. Jain could have seen it with his eyes wide open after having taken over the possession of the property, in question. Mr. Jain being such an educated and high profile person was supposed not to be so innocent as to fail to verify the title of Mr. Adhikari over the entire property. Besides, he was a purchaser. So, it was incumbent upon him to be ware enough regarding the title of ownership of the property, in question. 9. In the circumstances, the submission of the chargesheet by the police is highly unjustified and appears to be the result of pressure impulse exerted by Mr. Jain upon the police, as he was an IPS Officer, who retired as DGP. Hence, this petition has substance and it is liable to be allowed. 5 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned chargesheet as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 298/2006, State v. Bhupendra Singh Adhikari, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora, are hereby quashed. 11. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 19.12.2011 Prabodh