1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6384/2020)
RAJARAM SHARMA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
17.3.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Application No. 4045/2020 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC).
3. The Appellant herein approached the High Court under Section
482 CrPC seeking quashment of Case No. 3969/9 of 2019, Computer
Case No. 1276 of 2019 (State vs. Rajaram Sharma) arising out of
Case Crime No. 813 of 2018 under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), P.S. Brindavan, District Mathura. As
per the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the application.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIRMALA NEGI
Date: 2024.01.12
16:08:06 IST
4.
Reason: Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Despite
2
being served, the second respondent, who is the de-facto
complainant, has not entered appearance to contest the matter. We
have carefully gone through the allegations in the complaint which
led to the registration of the subject FIR as also the chargesheet
laid on 24.10.2018.
5. It is the precise contention of the appellant that even if the
entire allegations are taken as correct, they would not satisfy the
necessary ingredients to attract the above mentioned offences. A
careful scanning of the allegations would reveal that the very
foundation for the case is that certain amount was transferred from
the bank account of one Mr. Pankaj Sharma and his wife Mrs. Ashu
Sharma to the bank account of the appellant herein in connection
with sale of a plot of land. True that the second respondent got
a case that he has also handed over Rs. 1 lakh in cash to the
appellant in connection with the said deal. As a matter of fact,
there is no case that an agreement was inked in regard to the
alleged deal between the appellant and the second respondent or the
appellant and the aforementioned Mr. Pankaj Sharma and his wife
Mrs. Ashu and at any rate, no such document has been annexed to the
complaint. Mr. Pankaj Sharma and Mrs. Ashu, from whose bank
account money was allegedly transferred to the bank account of the
appellant for the alleged deal, are not the complainants. The
precise contention of the appellant is that the second respondent,
is a stranger to the facts alleged in the FIR. No civil
proceedings have been instituted against the appellant by the
second respondent or the aforementioned parties. As noted earlier,
3
despite such contentions specifically raised in this appeal the
second respondent has not chosen to appear and contest the matter.
6. Apart from the aforesaid aspects, a scanning of the FIR and
the subsequently filed chargesheet, we are of the considered view
that ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under Sections
420, 406, 504, and 506 of the IPC are not made out. The impugned
order would reveal that the said aspect was not at all looked into
by the High Court. When the High Court was called upon to invoke
power under Section 482 CrPC raising such contentions, it was
incumbent upon the High Court to consider the question whether the
allegations would constitute the offence(s) alleged against the
appellant.
7. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold
that the appellant is entitled to succeed in the appeal.
Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
17.3.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Application No. 4045/2020 is set aside. Consequently, the entire
proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 813 of 2018 under
Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
registered with P.S. Brindavan, District Mathura stands quashed. We
make it clear that in view of the quashment of the FIR and the
chargesheet all further proceedings including those against the
other accused, namely, Mr. Rakesh Rajora in the selfsame crime will
also stand terminated.
4
8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
.................J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
.................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 04, 2024
5
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.13 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6384/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-03-2020
in A482 No. 4045/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad)
RAJARAM SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.129684/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.129683/2020-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T.
Date : 04-01-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv.
Mrs. Prerna Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Pal, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Madhusudan Singh, Adv.
Dr. Balram Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G.
Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Kumar Prasad, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order, placed on the
file. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(DR. NAVEEN RAWAL) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
