SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

No prima Facie case made out – Criminal proceedings Quashed - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Respondent No.2 complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the directions F.I.R registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC   against six accused persons including the appellants.

Complainant stated in the F.I.R. that one Arun Kumar Maheshwari (co-accused) misappropriated complainant's and other persons’ monies ostensibly towards deposit in

monies back due to which, the property in question was attached by and was given in custody  

one Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. (in the year 1998-1999), and fled from Hapur without returning the to the complainant and one Bijendra Maheshwari, and now the accused have fraudulently sold the property in question to the co-accused / appellants Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain Appellants and other co- accused approached the High Court 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 application. Hence the accused, Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain have preferred the present appeal.

Appellants contended on the ground that they were 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 and allegations in the F.I.R./complaint, no case is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged except the allegation that the appellants have purchased the property, which is alleged to be an attached property.

Apex Court observed that it can be seen that the main allegations were 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.  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 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 facie case made out against the appellants for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

Criminal proceedings quashed against appellants.

D.D:- FEBRUARY 03, 2022.

Smt. Rekha Jain and Anr. Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 

Latest Legal News