No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 1012 of 2015 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Disha Vashistha, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant nos. 1 and 2. 2. None is present for the respondent. 3. The present Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash and set-aside the impugned summoning order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 2792 of 2014, Mahant Balaknath Vs. Rameshnath and Others, under Section 467 of IPC and also to stay the entire proceedings arising out from it. 4. The case of the applicants, in a nutshell, is that the applicants are bonafide purchaser and they have purchased a house situated in Mohalla Mehtan, Jwalapur, District Haridwar from one Sri Ramesh Nath, S/o Nathiram, Chela Mahant Shivnath for a sale consideration of Rs. 4 Lakhs. This registered sale deed was executed on 22.10.2013. Thereafter, the opposite party filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar stating himself to be the president of the Society namely Guru Smriti Nath Shiksha Sadan having registered number 025/2011-12. In the complaint, he has stated that one Mr. Ramesh Nath @ Ramesh Chandra, S/o Nathiram, Chela Mahant Shivnath, is not the owner of the property and he, in connivance with the applicants, have executed a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2013 in favour of the applicant nos. 1 and 2. The complaint was registered and statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Thereafter, the Court took cognizance in the matter and summons were issued to the applicants on 10.02.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that since they got knowledge about filing of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the opposite party, they immediately executed the sale deed of the same house they have purchased from one Mr. Ramesh Nath in favour of Ramesh Nath which was executed on 19.07.2014 and the said property was returned back to Mr. Ramesh Nath by way of this sale deed. Learned counsel has further submitted that before the learned Court had taken cognizance on the complaint filed by the opposite party, applicants have returned the house they have purchased from Mr. Ramesh Nath. They were bonafide purchaser for sale consideration, therefore, cognizance order passed against them is without application of mind. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that if the fact about returning back the house by registration on 19.07.2014 would have brought before the learned Magistrate before he took cognizance, then, cognizance would not have been taken against the applicants. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparently clear that the applicants were the bonafide purchaser of the property and as soon as they got the knowledge about filing of complaint by the opposite party under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., they immediately executed the sale deed in favour of Ramesh Nath, whereby, the said property was returned back and it is thus apparent that they had no intention of retaining the said property. Thus, this Court is of the view that applicant nos. 1 and 2 were bonafide purchaser of the said property and which they have subsequently returned back in favour of Ramesh Nath on 19.07.2014. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, summoning order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 2792 of 2014, Mahant Balaknath Vs. Rameshnath and Others, under Section 467 of IPC and the entire proceedings arising out from it, are hereby quashed. (Alok Mahra J.) 07.07.2025 Ujjwal