Dive into the intricacies of a recent legal case where the court’s analysis played a crucial role in quashing criminal proceedings against the appellants. The decision to dismiss the charges was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and laws involved. Find out more about the insightful legal reasoning behind this judgment.
Facts
- The appellants, accused Nos. 2 and 3, Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain, are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
- The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 filed by the appellants and refused to quash the criminal proceedings against them.
- The appellants have now preferred the present appeal against the High Court’s decision.
- The High Court’s decision to dismiss the application under Section 482 has been challenged by the appellants in this appeal.
- F.I.R. was filed based on a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the original complainant.
- F.I.R. registered against six accused persons, including the present appellants, under various sections of the IPC.
- Allegations in the F.I.R. stated misappropriation of funds by co-accused Arun Kumar Maheshwari in the past and subsequent fraudulent sale of property by the accused to the present appellants.
- The appellants, along with other accused, filed an application in the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Arguments
- The appellants are accused of purchasing an alleged attached property, but no other allegations are made against them for the mentioned offenses.
- The appellants claim to be bona fide purchasers of the property, which was not attached or in dispute at the time of purchase.
- The counsel argues that no attachment was registered or in place when the property was bought by the appellants.
- The main allegations are against Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others for misappropriation between 1995-1999, not the appellants.
- The learned counsel for the original complainant, respondent No.2, filed a counter affidavit stating no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
- The learned Additional Advocate General representing the State opposed the appeal citing the charge sheet filing post-investigation as a reason to not quash the proceedings.
- Upon questioning, the State counsel could not provide substantial evidence against the appellants, besides the property purchase allegation.
- The main allegations in the complaint/F.I.R. are primarily against co-accused Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- No prima facie case made out against the appellants for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
- Property purchased by the appellants in 2019.
- No record of attachment at the time of purchase by the appellants.
- Appellants are not related to the other co-accused.
- Allegation against the appellants is only that they purchased the property attached in 1998-1999 against amounts due to depositors of Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd.
- Continuing the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be an abuse of process of law and unnecessary harassment to them.
- The appellants are deemed to be purchasers of the property based on payment of sale consideration.
- The High Court should have utilized its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
- Therefore, the present appeal has succeeded based on the above reasons and circumstances.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Decision
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is 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 quashed and set aside.
- The appellants Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain are no longer concerned with the criminal proceedings.
Case Title: REKHA JAIN Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2022 INSC 141)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000136-000136 / 2022
