VINEETA MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 CrPC moved by the petitioners to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1323/2008 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC State vs. Smt. Vineeta Maurya & Ors. Pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow along with order dated 20.09.2008 and 20.02.2009 contained in Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 respectively of the petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 3 Rajesh Bahadur Singh against the petitioners and other with the averments that Smt. Vineeta Maurya petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 entered in an agreement to sale and purchase of the property belonging to Smt. Vineeta Maurya for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs. Out of that Rs. 7 lacs were paid as an advance money to petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3 and agreement to sale was executed and registered on 13.11.2006. As the property was already mortgaged for a loan of Rs. 15,91,334/- with the State Bank of India, Charbagh Branch, Lucknow, petitioner No. 1 assured that within two months the amount of loan will be cleared. A school was also running in the property in dispute. It was also assured by the petitioner No. 1 to the respondent No. 3 that she will inform him within two months after clearing the loan and at the same time he may get executed the sale-deed in his favour or any other person to whom he nominate after paying the rest amount and possession of the property will be delivered to him at that time. Severally he requested to the petitioners who are husband and wife to clear the loan of the Bank and to execute the sale-deed in his favour according to the terms and conditions of the deed, but neither she had cleared the loan of the bank nor executed the sale-deed in his favour. On 03.05.2008, he again approached Smt. Vineeta Maurya to execute the sale-deed, but again a deed was executed by her on that date that either she will return the advance money to the respondent No. 3 by 05.07.2008 or will execute the sale-deed in his favour but till the date nothing was done. When on 22.07.2008 at about 4.00 P.M. along with Sunil Kumar when he went to the house of Smt. Vineeta Maurya and inquired from her in the matter, her husband and one Asif with two unknown persons threatened him and stated that neither they will execute the sale-deed nor they will return his money. When he pressed for execution of the sale-deed or to return the money, they badly abused him and beaten him with kicks and fists. A case was registered against both the petitioners including one Asif and two unknown persons. On the report investigation in the matter was started and completing the same, charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons/petitioners for trial for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC only.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY, petitioners are husband and wife. It is also admitted to them that petitioner No. 1 entered in agreement to sale of her property with respondent No. 3 and a deed agreement to sale was executed and registered on 13.11.2006. Rs. 7 lacs were paid to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3 as an advance money for the same. A school was running in the property in dispute and a loan of Rs. 15,91,334/- was on the petitioner of State Bank of India against the same property in dispute was mortgaged with the bank. It was also agreed between the parties as mentioned in the agreement that petitioners will get clear the loan within two months and she will inform to the respondent No. 3 in this regard, so that he may get executed the sale-deed and get possession. Two months time was fixed for the same. Whether petitioner had cleared the loan of State Bank of India and she was ever ready and willing to execute the sale-deed as per terms and conditions of the agreement and to deliver the possession, it is not clear from the contents of the petition and affidavit filed on her behalf.