Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105524 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 3) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33066 of 2024 Applicant :- Narendra Singh Deora Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dev Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kumar Dhananjay Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri D.K. Srivatava, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Krishna Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Kailash Prakash Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 113 of 2022 (M/S AIRSON Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Narendra Singh Deora) under Section 406, 417, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station-Niwari, District-Ghaziabad as well as the summoning order dated 16.1.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant case was filed by the opposite party no. 2 by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was later converted into a complaint case. The allegation in the said complaint case is that an agreement to sell was executed by the opposite party no. 2- Company on issuance of cheques of Rs. 40 lakhs by the applicant herein. Subsequent thereto, two other cheques of Rs. 5 lakhs each were issued by the applicant and the agent of the opposite party no. 2, namely, Sanjay Singh had executed a sale deed on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Admittedly, the cheques in question issued by the applicant for executing the agreement to sell as well as the sale deed has never been encashed by the opposite party. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that opposite party no. 2 had earlier filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of sale deed and the same is still pending. In the said suit an application for interim injunction in favour of opposite party no. 2 was rejected against which order an FAFO is pending before this Court. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that though the cheques were not encashed, however cash payment was made in lieu of the said cheques to the agent of the opposite party no.2. This is a question of fact and cannot be decided while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the applicant submits that same cause of action is seeking attention of the civil courts including this Court in FAFO, therefore, criminal proceedings are uncalled for. Accordingly, he seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case against the applicant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that agent of the opposite party no. 2, namely, Sanjay Singh, who had executed the agreement to sell as well as the sale deed in favour of the applicant was the relative of the applicant and it is an admitted fact that the cheques in question which were issued by the applicant in favour of opposite party no. 2 were never encashed. Thus, no amount was received by the opposite party no. 2 in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement to sell or the sale deed. Therefore, the agreement to sell or the sale deed got executed by the applicant in collusion with said Sanjay Singh by defrauding the opposite party no. 2. In view thereof, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant, hence no indulgence is required by this Court. 7. Learned A.G.A. also submits that from the complaint and specifically from the fact that the cheques mentioned in the agreement to sell as well as the sale deed has never been encashed, a prima facie case has been made out against the applicant and having satisfied the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant for the offence under Section 406, 417, 504, 506 IPC. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the records of the case. 9. From the record of the case, it is apparent that on 13.1.2022, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and other co-accused, namely, Sunny S/o Brahm Singh wherein an allegation was made that an agreement to sell was executed by the agent of the opposite party no. 2, namely, Sanjay Singh wherein the cheques of Rs. 40 lakhs were issued by the applicants. However, the said cheques were never encashed by the opposite party no. 2 nor the same were handed over by said Sanjay Singh in favour of opposite party no. 2. Subsequent thereto, the said Sanjay Singh, who was relative of the applicant, had also executed a sale deed wherein two other cheques have been mentioned to have been received by Sanjay Singh from the applicant. However, none of the aforesaid cheques have ever been handed over by the said Sanjay Singh to the opposite party no. 2 nor the same were encashed by anyone. Thus, the applicant in collusion with Sanjay Singh got executed the sale deed by defrauding the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, from the allegations made in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was later converted into a complaint case coupled with the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. 10. In view thereof, this Court do not find any good reason to entertain the instant application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad