Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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