IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 331 of 2004 Smt. Sunita Bhatt W/o Anil Bhatt Resident of Village Nathanpur P.O. Nehru Gram, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Rajiv Mittal S/o B.C. Mittal R/o 13-C, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Asstt. Govt. Advocate along with Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for respondent State. None present for respondent No. 2 even after service of notice. 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 petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 180 of 2003; Rajiv Mittal Vs. Sunita Bhatt, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun. 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties present. No one turned up on behalf of respondent No. 2 / complainant. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 / complainant Rajiv Mittal filed a Criminal Complaint Case No. 940 of 2003, before the trial court against the petitioner Sunita Bhatt, alleging that she is owner of plot No. 660-A(M), measuring 389.30 Sq. Mts., situated in Village Nathanpur, Pargana Parva Doon, District Dehradun, on which a three room building is standing. It is pleaded by the complainant (respondent No. 2) that it was agreed between him and the petitioner that she would sell the property for Rs. 13,00,000/-, and an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- was paid as advance to her (petitioner) on 20th of November 2002. However, no sale deed was executed by her within six months as agreed between the parties. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner further demanded Rs. 95,000/-, and in all accepted Rs. 2,00,000/-, as a part consideration for sale of the property. According to complainant (respondent No. 2) the petitioner did not transfer the property and thereby the respondent No. 2 got cheated of the money. With these allegations criminal complaint was filed on which after recording statement of complainant under Section 200 and that of the witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun, summoned the petitioner Sunita Bhatt, to face trial in respect of offence 3 punishable under Section 406, 420, 504, 506 of I.P.C. Hence, this petition. 4) It is alleged in the present petition moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., that respondent did pay Rs. 1,05,000/- to the petitioner, but thereafter he failed to make the necessary payment as agreed between the parties, and executed deed of the property in favour of third person. When the complainant was served with the notice to make the payment of remaining amount so that the sale deed may be executed, he filed the present criminal complaint to pressurize the petitioner not to insist for payment of remaining sum. It is also pleaded in this petition that there was no inducement on the part of the petitioner to make the respondent No. 2 to part with his money with any fraudulent and dishonest intention. It is further pleaded that even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted, ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 504, 506 of I.P.C. are not made out. Challenging the impugned order of summoning, it is alleged that the same is illegal, as the transaction between the parties was purely of civil nature. 5) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 reiterating the contents of the criminal complaint made before the Magistrate. 4 6) Having gone through the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the transaction between the parties was purely of civil nature, as admittedly the petitioner agreed to sell her property to respondent No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 13,00,000/-. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that on the part of the petitioner there was intention to deceive the respondent No. 2. As such, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. do not appear to have been made out. Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section 406 of I.P.C., there must be entrustment of the property, which is also not there. Notice dated 02.06.2003, which was sent on behalf of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 (copy of which is Annexure –3 to the petition) shows that the petitioner herself demanded that after making payment of remaining amount of Rs. 11,95,000/- the respondent No. 2 can get the sale deed executed of the property in question. It is also mentioned in said notice that the cheque of amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was given to her on 17.01.2002 was dishonoured by the bank, and as such, it was the petitioner who was got cheated by the act of respondent No. 2. Criminal complaint appears to have been filed thereafter only in the year 2003. 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 the impugned 5 criminal complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law on the part of respondent No. 2 Rajiv Mittal, as the dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature, relating to sale of property, owned by the petitioner. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 180 of 2003; Rajiv Mittal Vs. Sunita Bhatt, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 26, 2010. H. Negi