Uttarakhand High Court
Smriti Garg vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr on 17 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.723 of 2021
Smriti Garg ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. .....Respondent
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021
Nitin Singh ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. A.P. Singh, learned
counsel for the Applicant in C482 No.723 of 2021.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the Private Respondent.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have been filed by the
applicants, Smriti Garg (Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of
2021) and Nitin Singh (Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of
2021), seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 04.08.2020
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/First Additional Civil
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5920
Judge (J.D.), Roorkee, in Criminal Case No. 1219 of 2020 (State v.
Sandeep Tyagi and Others).
2. The FIR was lodged pursuant to an order under Section 156(3)
CrPC passed by the competent Magistrate on the complaint of
Rajesh Kumar (Respondent No. 2), alleging that the accused
persons, including the present Applicants, committed fraud in
connection with multiple land sale transactions.
3. The gravamen of the allegations is that the principal accused
Sandeep Tyagi, in connivance with Smriti Garg (Applicant in C-482
No. 723 of 2021) and Nitin Singh (Applicant in C-482 No. 926 of
2021), sold a particular piece of land to the complainant vide a
registered sale deed dated 29.11.2014.
4. Subsequently, it is alleged that the same land was again sold by
Sandeep Tyagi to the mother-in-law of the complainant on
28.10.2015, concealing the fact of the earlier transaction and thereby
cheating the complainant.
5. The FIR also alleges that the accused persons executed multiple
sale deeds pertaining to the same parcel of land and fraudulently
induced the complainant and his mother-in-law to part with
substantial amounts of money.
6. The investigating agency, upon completion of the investigation,
submitted a charge sheet dated 21.06.2020 against the present
Applicants and the principal accused Sandeep Tyagi under Section
420 IPC.
7. The learned Judicial Magistrate/First Additional Civil Judge
(J.D.), Roorkee, vide order dated 04.08.2020, took cognizance of the
offence under Section 420 IPC and summoned the Applicants to
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5920
face trial in Criminal Case No. 1219 of 2020 (State v. Sandeep Tyagi
& Others).
8. Aggrieved by the said summoning order, the Applicants herein
have filed the present petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking
quashing of the summoning order dated 04.08.2020 as well as the
entire criminal proceedings.
9. Both of the said Criminal Miscellaneous Applications are being
decided collectively since they involve a common question of law
and facts.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the
dispute in question is purely civil in nature, arising from a
contractual land transaction between private parties, and has been
given a criminal colour with mala fide intent.
11. It was contended that the complainant is already in possession of
the land in question, and the allegations primarily pertain to title
disputes, which fall within the domain of civil courts.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Smriti Garg, argued
that she was merely the prior title holder of the land, who had
lawfully sold the property to the principal accused, Sandeep Tyagi.
Her involvement ceased after the execution of the sale deed in
favour of Sandeep Tyagi, and she has no role whatsoever in any
subsequent transaction between Sandeep Tyagi and the complainant.
13. It was further submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR or
the charge sheet that the applicant Smriti Garg induced the
complainant, made any false representation, or derived any benefit
from the subsequent sale transactions.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5920
14. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant Nitin Singh
submitted that he was merely a witness to the sale deed dated
29.11.2014 executed by Sandeep Tyagi in favour of the complainant
and that he had no pecuniary interest or involvement in the
transaction.
15. It was argued that the act of attesting a sale deed does not
constitute any element of deception or fraudulent inducement. Thus,
the basic ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 415
IPC are not satisfied against the applicant Nitin Singh.
16. Both Applicants placed reliance on the fact that a civil suit, being
Original Suit No. 114 of 2019 (Rajesh Kumar and Another v.
Sandeep Tyagi and Another), seeking a permanent injunction, has
already been instituted and is pending between the parties
concerning the same property.
17. It was submitted that allowing criminal proceedings to continue
alongside the civil suit would amount to double jeopardy and an
abuse of the process of law.
18. The learned counsel further argued that the summoning order
dated 04.08.2020 has been passed mechanically without application
of mind, without any analysis as to how the ingredients of the
offence of cheating are satisfied.
19. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
and G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, to contend
that the continuation of criminal proceedings in purely civil disputes
amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5920
20. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, supported by learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 (Complainant), submitted
that the allegations made in the FIR and substantiated during the
investigation disclose a clear and cognizable offence under Section
420 IPC.
21. It was submitted that the Applicants, in connivance with co-
accused Sandeep Tyagi, knowingly and dishonestly executed
multiple sale deeds over the same property with the intent to defraud
the complainant and his family members.
22. The learned counsel argued that the charge sheet is based not
merely on the FIR but also on the statements of material witnesses
recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which demonstrate the
involvement of the Applicants in the conspiracy to cheat the
Complainant.
23. Concerning applicant Smriti Garg, it was contended that her act
of executing the earlier sale deed in favour of Sandeep Tyagi, while
knowing that the property was subsequently being resold to third
parties, forms part of the chain of events constituting the offence.
24. With respect to Applicant Nitin Singh, the claim that he was
merely an attesting witness was refuted by pointing to his presence
during the transaction and his role in assuring the complainant about
the title, both of which, as reflected in witness statements, are
central to the allegation of cheating and warrant scrutiny during trial.
25. It was submitted that the argument regarding the pendency of a
civil suit does not dilute the criminality of the act. The existence of a
civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution when the ingredients
of the offence are independently satisfied.
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5920
26. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the
power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, and the
quashing of the criminal proceedings at this stage would not be
appropriate when a prima facie case is clearly disclosed.
27. Strong reliance was placed on the judgments in Indian Oil
Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259, to contend that
merely because the allegations also disclose a civil wrong does not
mean that criminal prosecution is unsustainable if the criminal
offence is made out on the same set of facts.
28. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
29. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the scope of jurisdiction
exercisable under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482
CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of
justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, laid down seven illustrative categories
where the power under Section 482 may be exercised to quash
criminal proceedings. However, it has been repeatedly emphasized
that where the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence, the Court should be slow to stifle legitimate prosecution at
the threshold.
30. In the present case, the foundational allegation is that the accused
persons, including the present Applicants, have engaged in a
deliberate and fraudulent design to deceive the Complainant by
executing multiple sale deeds concerning the same property. It is not
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5920
merely a case of contractual failure or a defective title, but one
where it is alleged that the complainant was dishonestly induced to
part with money on the false representation that the title to the
property was clear and marketable, despite the accused persons
being aware of prior transactions.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC
India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, has unequivocally held that merely
because a civil dispute is also involved does not mean that a
criminal complaint is not maintainable, if the ingredients of the
criminal offence are made out. Similarly, in Rajesh Bajaj v. State
NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259, the Supreme Court emphasized
that it is not necessary that every detail of the offence be set out in
the complaint; what matters is whether the substance of the
allegations discloses the commission of an offence.
32. Applying these principles, this Court is unable to accept the
contention of the applicant Smriti Garg that her role ceased upon the
execution of the sale deed in favour of the principal accused
Sandeep Tyagi. The chain of transactions and the subsequent resale
of the same property, as alleged, cannot be compartmentalized to
absolve her of liability at this stage. Whether she had the requisite
mens rea or was privy to the alleged conspiracy is a matter that can
only be examined after the evidence is presented during the trial.
33. Likewise, the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant Nitin
Singh that he was merely an attesting witness to the sale deed cannot
be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The charge
sheet records statements from the complainant and other witnesses
indicating that the applicant was not a passive witness but had a
participatory role in facilitating the transaction. Whether this role
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5920
satisfies the threshold of criminal liability is a matter of appreciation
of evidence, which falls within the exclusive domain of the trial
court.
34. The contention that the pendency of a civil suit between the
parties (O.S. No. 114 of 2019) warrants quashing of the criminal
proceedings is equally untenable. It is trite law that the existence of
a civil remedy does not preclude criminal prosecution if the
elements of the criminal offence are independently satisfied. This
Court further finds that the summoning order dated 04.08.2020
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/First Additional Civil
Judge (J.D.), Roorkee, cannot be said to suffer from any perversity,
illegality, or procedural irregularity. The learned Magistrate has
recorded satisfaction upon examination of the charge sheet and case
diary that sufficient material exists to take cognizance under Section
420 IPC.
35. Given the material available in the charge sheet, including the
statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the prima facie
involvement of the applicants cannot be ruled out. Whether the
allegations will ultimately be substantiated is a matter to be tested
during the trial, and it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court
to conduct a roving inquiry into the facts at this stage.
36. The applicants have failed to make out any case warranting the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for
quashing of the criminal proceedings.
ORDER
Given the foregoing discussion, both Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 723 of 2021 (Smriti Garg v. State &
8
Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5920
Another) and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 926 of 2021
(Nitin Singh v. State & Another) are hereby dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:17th June, 2025
NR/
9
Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
With
Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_1]
Source link