SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 03-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 509
509
SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Criminal
proceedings u/ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC – Six
accused including appellants-accused –Allegation in FIR that one
co-accused had misappropriated complainant’s and other persons’
monies whereafter the property in question was attached in the year
1998-199 against the amounts due; and in the year 2019, the
property was purchased by the appellants – High Court declined to
quash criminal proceedings against the appellants – Justification
of – Held: Not justified – Main allegations were against the co-
accused – Only allegation against the appellants was that they
purchased the property in question – Even from the averments and
allegations in the FIR, no prima facie case made out against the
appellants – To continue criminal proceedings against the appellants
would be an abuse of process of law and the Court, and unnecessary
harassment to the appellants – Criminal proceedings quashed
insofar as appellants are concerned – IPC – ss.406, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Having perused the allegations in the complaint/
F.I.R., it can be seen that the main allegations are against the
other co-accused. The only allegation against the appellants is
that they have purchased the property in question, which was
attached in the year 1998-1999 against the amounts due and
payable to the depositors, who had deposited in Kuber Mutual
Benefits Ltd. between 1998-1999. It is to be noted that the
property has been purchased by the appellants in the year 2019.
Nothing is brought on record that at the time when the property
was purchased by the appellants, the attachment was continued
and/or any attachment was registered. There are no allegations
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
that the appellants are related to the other co-accused. Even from
the averments and the allegations in the F.I.R., it cannot be said
that there is any prima facie case made out against the appellants
for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-
B IPC. The main allegations are against other co-accused.
Therefore, to continue the criminal proceedings against the
appellants would be an abuse of process of law and the Court and
unnecessary harassment to the appellants, who seem to be the
purchasers of the property on payment of sale consideration. In
the above facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court
ought to have exercised its powers and discretion under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings
against the appellants. [Para 6][512-G-H; 513-A-D]
2. The criminal proceedings for offences under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, including the charge
sheet are hereby quashed and set aside in so far as the appellants
are concerned. [Para 7][513-D-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
136 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature in Allahabad in Application U/s 482 No.47634 of 2019.
Ashok Kumar Sharma, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advs.,
Parmanand Gaur, Vikalp Mudgal, Ekansh Bansal, Vaibhav Mishra, Ajay
Singh, Amit Kumar, Anurag Andley, Rahul Pratap Singh, Ms. Alka Sinha,
Abhishek Atrey, Advs. for the Appellants.
R. K. Raizada, AAG, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Shreesh Kumar
Mishra, Santosh Kumar, Ms. Priya Puri, Mukesh Rana, Ms. Mamta,
Ms. Smriti Sinha, Ranjay Dubey, Yati Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in an Application under Section 482 No. 47634 of 2019 by
which the High Court has dismissed the said application and has refused
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
511
to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., original accused Nos. 2 and 3 – appellants herein – Smt.
Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain have preferred the present appeal.
2. That on the basis of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
submitted by the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant, on the
diections of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, F.I.R.
dated 21.01.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 was registered
under Sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.