Ravindra Maithani, J
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the charge-sheet dated 5th June, 2020 filed in case crime no. 47 of 2010, Police Station Kotwali Mussoorie, District
Dehradun and summoning order dated 17th July, 2013, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in criminal case no. 1740 of 2013, State
vs. Karanjeet Singh and another (‘the case’), as also entire proceedings of the case.
2. The FIR in the instant case was lodged by respondent no.2. According to it, father of the informant agreed to purchase a property named, Prospect
Point, Sister Bazar, Mussoorie Cantt. (‘The property’) on 7th March, 1974 and paid entire consideration and also took possession. Subsequently,
the property was rented out to a Malu D Japata, against whom, an eviction suit was filed. The petitioner was doing pairvi in the case for Malu D
Japata. On the basis of forged power of attorney, he unauthorisedly occupied the property. A sale-deed of the property was finally executed in the
name of father of the informant by the intervention of the court.
3. According to the FIR, on 7th November, 2000, a sale-deed (‘the sale-deed’) was executed by a Steve Scott in order to grab the property.
But, there was no person named as Steve Scott, which was confirmed by the Police and other authorities. A suit for cancellation of the sale-deed was
filed but it has been lost by the informant, as told today by her learned counsel. There are other averments as well in the FIR. One important incident
is stated that the same property was again sold on 9th March, 2009 and before that the petitioner surrendered the property because it was earlier got
allotted by him in his favour. It is this FIR, in which, after the investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against Karanjeet Singh and the petitioner.
The crux of the charge-sheet is that there was no person named Steve Scott, who executed the sale-deed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is not beneficiary of the sale-deed, he is not even witness of the sale-deed and no
case is made out against him.
5. On behalf of informant/respondent no.2, it is argued that it is the petitioner, who wanted to grab the property. He was occupying the property un-
authorisedly, as stated in para 4 of the FIR. The property was subsequently sold by Karanjeet in the year 2009 and in that sale-deed the petitioner was
a witness. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would argue that in fact the intention of the petitioner is clear throughout, he wanted to grab the
property and a case is made out against him. In addition, it is argued that even all the pleas may be taken by the petitioner at the time of faming of the
charge and the trial should allowed to proceed.
6. On behalf of the State it is argued that there is no harm if the trial is allowed to proceed.
7. It is not a question of harm or benefit to any party. It is a petition under Section 482 of the Code. The law need not be reiterated again. It is settled
law that if prima facie case is made out, the court should make no interference. But, if no prima facie case is made out or/ and if the averments, as
made in the FIR, are accepted in its entirety and even then if no prima facie case is made out, the court should definitely make an interference. It is
also settled legal position that a case may have, both civil or criminal nature. A case civil in nature may have an element of criminality and if so the
criminal prosecution should not be stopped.
8. It is also settled legal position that a meticulous examination of material should not be made in this proceeding and legitimate prosecution should not
be stopped at its threshold.
9. With regard to property, according to the allegations there were various litigations initiated. Initially, a suit was filed against the tenant. Thereafter
the sale-deed of the property was executed in the name of father of the informant by the intervention of the court. The court perused the sale-deed
dated 7th November, 2000, on the basis of which mainly the charge-sheet has been filed. About which, it is stated that there was no person named
Steve Scott, who was vendor in the sale-deed. But, the fact remains that the sale-deed dated 7th November, 2000, was not executed in favour of the
petitioner. The fact remains that petitioner was not even witness in the sale-deed dated 7th November, 2000. If it is so, how is the petitioner is involved
in the case. Along with the counter affidavit, the State has filed the statement of the three witnesses including the informant. The two of the witnesses
are Sudha and Satkartar. They have also not stated anything against the petitioner.
10. Reference has been made to para 4 of the FIR, particularly, the statement that the petitioner is uuauthorisedly occupying the property. The court
wanted to know if the petitioner was already occupying the property since 1995, as stated in para 4 of the FIR, what were the situations when he
again got the property allotted in his name, as stated in para 13 of the FIR and why did he surrender it again. These are all are unanswered questions
and these are not the questions which would raise any case or doubt about complicity of the petitioner in the offence. But, these are the questions,
which would indicate, that this dispute is a purely civil in nature. It is a dispute with regard to a property. Whatever allegations have been levelled
against the petitioner there is not even an iota of evidence, which may connect the petitioner with the sale-deed dated 7th November, 2000. Even
otherwise no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.
11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that allowing the proceeding against the petitioner would be nothing but the abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.
12. The petition is allowed.
13. The charge-sheet, summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the case are quashed qua the petitioner.
