SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

                        [2022] 1 S.C.R. 509                            509


                 SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR.                              A
                                 v.
         THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2022)
                       FEBRUARY 03, 2022                               B
        [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
                                                                       C
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-       D
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
                                                                       E
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
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            G
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
                                                                       H
                                509
510            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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
D     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.
E
            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.

F          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.
G           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

H
       SMT. REKHA JAIN v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                           511
                       [M. R. SHAH, J.]

to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section          A
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.   B
dated 21.01.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 was registered
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar,
District Hapur against six accused persons including the appellants herein.
       2.1 That it was stated in the F.I.R. that one Arun Kumar
Maheshwari (co-accused) had earlier misappropriated complainant’s and          C
other persons’ monies ostensibly towards deposit in one Kuber Mutual
Benefits Ltd. (in the year 1998-1999), and fled from Hapur without
returning the monies back due to which, the property in question was
attached by and was given in custody to the complainant - Pradeep
Singhal and one Bijendra Maheshwari, and now the accused have
fraudulently sold the property in question to the co-accused Smt. Rekha        D
Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain (appellants herein).
      2.2 That the appellants herein and other co-accused approached
the High Court by way of the present application to quash the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said             E
application. Hence the accused, Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi
Jain have preferred the present appeal.
       3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – accused
has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the High court has committed a grave error in not quashing the           F
criminal proceedings against the appellants.
       3.1 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants that the main allegations are against one Arun Kumar
Maheshwari and others and that too for the offences of misappropriation
of the amount deposited between 1995-1999. It is submitted that the            G
appellants are the bona fide purchasers of the property in question, which
was neither an attached property nor a subject matter of any dispute at
the time it was purchased by the appellants.
       3.2 It is submitted that on a bare reading of the allegations in the
F.I.R./complaint, no case is made out against the appellants for the           H
512             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     offences alleged except the allegation that the appellants have purchased
      the property, which is alleged to be an attached property. It is submitted
      that neither any attachment was registered nor any attachment was in
      existence at the time when the appellants purchased the property.
            3.3 It is submitted that except the allegation that the appellants
B     have purchased the so called alleged attached property, there are no
      further allegations at all by which it can be said that the appellants have
      committed the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-
      B IPC.
            3.4 It is therefore submitted that the criminal proceedings against
C     the appellants are nothing but an abuse of process of law and an
      unnecessary harassment to them. Therefore, it is prayed to quash the
      criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
             4. Shri R.K. Raizada, learned Additional Advocate General
      appearing on behalf of the State tried to oppose the present appeal by
D     submitting that after the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed
      and therefore the present criminal proceedings be not quashed at this
      stage. However, when a pointed question was asked to the learned
      counsel appearing on behalf of the State about the actual role assigned
      to the appellants and to point out any material against the appellants for
      the offences alleged and other allegations, except the allegation that the
E     appellants have purchased the property, learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the State was not in a position to point out any other material
      against the appellants by which, it can be said that any prima facie case
      is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged.
            5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant
F     – respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit submitting that having
      come to know the true facts, he has no objection if the criminal
      proceedings against the appellants are quashed.
             6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      respective parties and having perused the allegations in the complaint/
G     F.I.R., it can be seen that the main allegations are against the other co-
      accused – Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others. 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
H
       SMT. REKHA JAIN v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                            513
                       [M. R. SHAH, J.]

purchased by the appellants in the year 2019. Nothing is brought on             A
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 that the appellants are related to the other co-
accused Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others. Even from the averments
and the allegations in the F.I.R., it cannot be said that there is any prima
                                                                                B
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        C
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.
       7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by              D
the High Court is hereby 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 hereby quashed and set aside in so far as
the appellants herein – Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain are
concerned.                                                                      E

       Present appeal is accordingly allowed.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                          Appeal allowed.

                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H