8 August vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 8 August, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

8 August vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 8 August, 2025

                                                       2025:UHC:7035



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
 Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 611 of 2016
                         08 August, 2025



Rajni Verma                                        ........Applicant
                               Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Another
                                                ........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay,
learned for the applicant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Akshay
Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

The present application under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short

“Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the applicant seeking

quashing of the chargesheet and the

cognizance/summoning order dated 23.02.2016

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 743 of 2016, as well

as the entire proceedings of the said case.

2. Learned senior counsel for the applicant

would submit that respondent no.3 had sold a piece

of land measuring 0.09 acre of Khasra No. 658/1,

situated at Village Kudkhawala, District Dehradun,

1
2025:UHC:7035
through a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1987 in

favour of Smt. Manju Singh, wife of Gyanendra Pal

Singh; that, on the basis of the said sale deed, her

name was recorded in the revenue records on

26.02.2009; that, thereafter, on 17.01.2014, Smt.

Manju Singh executed a registered sale deed of the

same land in favour of the applicant, whose name

was mutated in the revenue records on 13.05.2014.

3. Learned senior counsel would further

submit that respondent no.3, the real uncle of the

applicant, bore animosity towards the applicant’s

father; that, with a view to harass the family, he

lodged an FIR against Smt. Manju Singh, her

husband, and members of the applicant’s family,

including the father, mother, brother, and sister of

the applicant, alleging that an incorrect property

had been sold through the sale deed dated

17.01.2014; that, the said FIR was challenged in a

criminal writ petition, in which a Coordinate Bench

of this Court, by order dated 08.08.2014, stayed

further proceedings. During investigation, the police

found the allegations against the applicant’s father,

mother, brother, and sister to be false and filed the

2
2025:UHC:7035
chargesheet only against the applicant, Smt. Manju

Singh, and her husband.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant

pointed out that while respondent no.3 himself had

executed the 1987 sale deed in favour of Smt.

Manju Singh and admitted in his written statement

in Civil Suit No. 48 of 2015 that the khasra number

in that deed was wrongly recorded as 658 instead of

659, he nevertheless lodged a criminal case on the

same issue. It was contended that this conduct

amounts to blowing hot and cold. He would further

submit that the dispute is purely civil in nature,

concerning title and description of property, and is

already pending before the civil court; that, the

criminal proceedings have been initiated solely to

pressurize the applicant’s family; that, the applicant

is a bona fide purchaser and there is no allegation

of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception

of the transaction.

5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant

argued that the investigating officer acted in a

cursory manner without appreciating the civil

nature of the dispute, and that the learned

3
2025:UHC:7035
Magistrate mechanically issued summons without

due application of mind.

6. Learned senior counsel for the applicant in

support of his case has relied upon the judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd.

v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC

749, holding that summoning an accused is a

serious matter requiring judicial application of

mind; that, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,

(2012) 9 SCC 460, where quashing was held

permissible if allegations do not disclose the

essential ingredients of the offence; that, in Inder

Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007)

12 SCC 1, affirming the power under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process; and in Urmila

Devi & Ors. v. Balram & Another, 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1574, where the Supreme Court

quashed criminal proceedings in a civil inheritance

dispute.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed

the application, contending that the investigation

was properly conducted and the trial court had

rightly taken cognizance. However, he conceded

4
2025:UHC:7035
that the dispute appears to be of a civil nature.

8. On perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the

dispute pertains to property description and

alteration of khasra numbers. Respondent no.3’s

own written statement in the civil suit

acknowledges that the wrong khasra number was

mentioned in the 1987 sale deed; that, there is no

allegation that the applicant ever dishonestly

induced the complainant to part with money or

property, a necessary ingredient of offences under

Sections 420, 468, and 120-B IPC.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.

Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16

SCC 739, and Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun

Kumar Surekha, (1973) 2 SCC 823, mere non-

performance or a dispute over property description,

without fraudulent intent from inception, gives rise

at best to civil liability and not criminal culpability.

10. In the present case, the allegations, even if

taken at face value, do not make out the essential

ingredients of the offences alleged. The dispute is

essentially civil in nature, camouflaged as a

criminal prosecution to exert pressure upon the

5
2025:UHC:7035
applicant.

11. In view of the above discussion, this Court

is satisfied that it is a fit case to invoke the inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent

abuse of the process of law.

12. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

The chargesheet, the cognizance/summoning order

dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.

743 of 2016 (State v. Manju Singh & Ors.), and all

consequential proceedings so far as they relate to

the applicant, are hereby quashed qua the

applicant.

13. Pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of accordingly.

(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
08.08.2025.

Mamta

6