IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 223 of 2006 1. Satender Kumar Mehta W/o Sri Narender Kumar Mehta 2. Dheeraj Kumar Mehta S/o Sri Narender Kumar Mehta 3. Narender Kumar Mehta S/o late Sri Chandra Kumar Mehta All R/o Mohalla Mehtan, Jwalapur, P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal / State of Uttarakhand. 2. S.C. Pal S/o Sri Bhola Ram Pal R/o Arya Nagar, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. S.C. Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 413 of 2004; State Vs. Mahender and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 120-B of I.P.C. police station Jwalapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that daughter and son-in- law of the complainant S.C. Pal (present respondent No. 2) purchased a piece of land situated in Sharda Nagar Colony, Jwalapur, District Haridwar, from one Sumer Chand and Mahender Kumar for an amount of Rs. 2,43,000/-, on 13.08.1999. It is alleged by the complainant in the first information report that in respect of said plot some litigation was going on before the Allahabad High Court, and said fact was concealed from the purchasers. It is further alleged that had the purchasers or the complainant knew said fact they would not have purchased said plot. On said report, Crime No. 322 of 2000, was registered with police station Jwalapur against Narendra Kumar Mehta, Satender Kumar Mehta, Dhiraj Kumar Mehta, Som Tyagi, Arvind Tyagi and Mahender Kumar. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after investigation, final report (Copy Annexure –4 to the petition) was submitted by the Investigating Officer, but the superior officers of the police department got it re- investigated, as the complainant was a retired Dy. Superintendent of Police. It is further pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that again final report was submitted, and once again the matter was sent back for re- investigation. Ultimately, the impugned charge sheet was filed against the accused named in the first information report (including the petitioners). 5) It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 were simply witnesses in the sale deed and they had no other role. Petitioner No. 1 had filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court as Power of Attorney holder of one Dev Dutt Sharma. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that it is not the case of the complainant that the purchasers did not get possession of the land. Rather, not only the purchasers got possession of the land but they constructed their house on it. It is contended that infact, there is no legal injury to the complainant, who is father of one of the purchasers and father-in-law of the another. With the rejoinder affidavit copy of the extract of house tax register has also been filed showing that not only the purchasers (daughter and son-in-law of the complainant) have constructed their house, but they are also paying house tax in respect of the plot purchased by them. This fact has also come in the final report earlier submitted by the police. It is also pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that the writ petition, which was filed by petitioner No. 1 Satender Kumar Mehta, was withdrawn by him. 6) In the counter affidavit only allegation as to cheating is that the complaint’s son-in-law could not get cheap loan from the Life Insurance Corporation for construction of house, and he has to arrange the loan on higher interest from the market, to construct the building. At least the petitioners cannot be held responsible for that. 7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that it is clearly an abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to initiate the criminal proceedings, in the above circumstances after getting possession of the land which was purchased. It is pertinent to mention here that not only the son-in-law of the complainant has constructed his house over the plot, but his name has also been recorded in the house tax register. As to the litigation initiated by the petitioner No. 1 before the Allahabad High Court, that has already been withdrawn, and it has nothing to do with the sale deed executed in favour of the daughter and son-in-law of the complainant. 8) For the reasons as discussed above, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 413 of 2004, State Vs. Mahender and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 120-B of I.P.C., police station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 18, 2010. H. Negi