Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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