Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21647 Court No. - 19 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1290 of 2017 Applicant :- Smt. Deepika Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Shamshad Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Sachin Tiwari Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Shamshad Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sachin Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. The applicant by means of present application has prayed for following relief: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned summoning order dated 07.12.2016 passed by IInd A.C.J.M., Lucknow in Crl. Case No.43004768 of 2013, State Versus Smt. Deepika Gupta and another and the impugned Charge Sheet No.137 of 2016 dated 10.07.2016 filed in Case Crime No.39 of 2016, U/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 457, 380 of IPC, P.S. Aashiana, District Lucknow as contained in Annexure no.1 and 2 to this petition and further the entire criminal proceedings of Crl. Case No.43004768 of 2013, State Vs. Smt. Deepika Gupta and another initiated against the petitioner be also set aside." 3. The FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2-Pramod Tiwari alleging that he had purchased a house situated at M- 395, Aashiana, Kanpur Road Scheme, Lucknow from one Deepika Gupta wife of Mahavir Prasad Gupta. The further version of the FIR is that for purchasing the house the son of the opposite party no.2 Sushant Kumar who is an employee of State Bank of India, has submitted an application for loan and Bank after verifying the records of the house approved the loan of 39 lakhs. Amount of Rs.61,000/- was paid by cash by the opposite party no.2 and Rs.3,59,000/- through RTGS from the Bank of India, Branch CMS and balance amount was also paid through the demand draft. On payment of sale consideration a sale deed was executed by Deepika Gupta on 10.12.2015 and thereafter, opposite party no.2 started living in the house. 4. The further allegation in the FIR that on 13.01.2016 the opposite party no.2 had gone somewhere and when he came back on 14.01.2016 he found that the lock of the house was broke open and some person has occupied the house. The further allegation is that despite repeatedly calling the man who occupied the house, he did not come out. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 informed the police and the police reached on the spot and took the opposite party no.2 as well as Dileep Kumar to the police station where police saw the sale deed of Dileep Kumar as well as of opposite party party no.2. The opposite party no.2 was informed that the sale deed of the Dileep Kumar is prior to the date to the sale deed of opposite party no.2. 5. The allegation in the FIR is that the fact the house was already sold to Dileep Kumar was concealed by the applicant and due to which, huge amount of Rs.39 lakhs of the opposite party no.2 had duped. The police registered an FIR under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 457, 380 of IPC. Investigation was carried out and police filed chargesheet against the applicant and co-accused Mahavir Prasad Gupta, Sudhir Kumar Mishra and Dileep Kumar under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 457, 380 of IPC. 6. Challenging the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the dispute is purely of civil nature and a criminal proceeding has been lodged against the applicant to pressurize the applicant to return the money of the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that in the instant case, the applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the house from one Narendra Pandey. It is evident from the FIR that the son of opposite party no.2 is the employee of the Bank and after verifying the title of the house the Bank sanctioned the loan. 7. It is submitted that it is evident from the FIR that the title of the house was clean and there was no dispute with regard to it. It is submitted that fraud has been committed by Narendra Pandey who had deceived the applicant as well as Dileep Kumar inasmuch as Narendra Pandey executed the sale deed in favour of applicant as well as Dileep Kumar. It is submitted that no offfence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 457, 380 of IPC is made out against the applicant and reading of the FIR and chargesheet clearly discloses that it is a case of malicious prosecution. 8. Per-contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 would contend that it has come in the statement of Jeetu @ Sonu, Broker, that the applicant was aware of the fact that the dispute with regard to the house is going on and despite knowing this fact the applicant in order to cheat the opposite party no.2 sold the house in question. 9. Be that as it may, in the instant case it is evident from the FIR and the chargesheet that the son of opposite party no.2 is the Bank employee. The perusal of the FIR reveals that before purchasing the property the opposite party no.2 got the title of the house verified and the Bank having been satisfied about the title of the house sanctioned the loan to the son of the opposite party no.2 and the money was paid by the bank through bank draft to the applicant. It has also come in the FIR that the sale deed was executed and thereafter opposite party no.2 was put in possession and opposite party no.2 was enjoying the possession of the house, and it is only when on one night the opposite party no.2 was out of the house, it was occupied by Dileep Kumar who claims to be the owner of the house as he purchased the house in question from Narendra Pandey from whom the applicant has also purchased the same house. 10. It is not a case where the applicant has executed the sale deed in favour of opposite party no.2-Pramod Tiwari and Dileep Kumar. The opposite party no.2 after having conducted due enquiry that the title of the house is clear, purchased the house in question. If there is any cause to the opposite party no.2, he may lay suit for recovery of money, but so far as the criminal prosecution is concerned, from the reading of the FIR it is not made out that any fraud or deception has been committed by the applicant against the opposite party no.2. 11. In such view of the fact, no offence under aforesaid sections have been made out against applicant. Accordingly, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.43004768 of 2013 (State Vs. Smt. Deepika Gupta and another) arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 457, 380 of IPC, Police Station Aashiana, District Lucknow to the extent of applicant, are quashed. 12. The present Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench