CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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