Mohan Lal Sharma executed a General Power of Attorney on 13.12.1996 in favour of respondent number3 in regard to the abovementioned land measuring 13.5 Bighas out of the total of 26 Bighas approximately .
The appellants companytended that they filed a criminal miscellaneous application under section 482 Cr.
The Sabha also discovered that 11.19 Bighas of land, for which there was only an agreement to sell between respondent number3 and the Sabha, was also sold by respondent number4 to his father respondent number3 herein by executing three registered sale deeds.
In pursuance to this, an earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/ was received by the Sabha from respondent number3.
No reply to the said numberice was received from the respondents number was Rs.8,00,000/ paid.
11.19 Bighas .
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
The appellants learnt that respondent number4 had executed at least 29 registered sale deeds companysisting of 13.5 Bighas of land in favour of various parties.
Mohan Lal Sharma, the President of the Sabha, expired on 30.8.1999.
He had paid a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/ on 21.3.1997.
In these circumstances, appellant number 1 M. Goswami cancelled the power of attorney issued in favour of respondent number4 and informed respondent number 4 accordingly.
Such sales companyld number give any title to respondent number3.
P.C. for quashing the proceedings against them.
The High Court was pleased to pass the interim order on 22.10.2003 staying further proceedings.
P.C. for quashing the FIR because numberoffence under sections 467, 420 and 120B of the P.C. companyld be made out.
The appellants in the rejoinder submitted that the trial companyrt was number justified in taking companynizance of the matter when numberprima facie case was made out against the appellants.
The allegation of respondent number3 was that the appellants in companynivance with other persons had sold the part of land situated in Old Khasra No.140 and new Khasra No.89 which had been transferred to them by way of General Power of Attorney.
As per the agreement, respondent number3 had to pay another Rs.1,00,000/ to the Sabha by 31.1.1997.
P.C. filed by the appellants on the ground that the records show that the allegations in the FIR companystitute an offence as alleged by the companyplainant.
On companypletion of the companystruction of the Ghat, the Sabha through its President Pt.
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and part of 89, 90 in Village Haripur Kalan, Rishikesh, Dehradun, in favour of Suresh Ahuja respondent number4 as per the request of respondent number3.
P.C. by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital.
A reply was filed on behalf of the State by Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, SHO, Raiwala Police Station, in which two points were raised That, appellant number1 has wrongly cancelled the General Power of Attorney given to respondent number4 and That, appellant number1 has wrongly and illegally executed the sale deed of land companyprising in Khasra No.140 new Khasra Nos.61 to 68, 89 and 90 without returning the earnest money of respondent number.3 and 4.
The appellants sold only that part of the land to Sunil Kumar on behalf of the Sabha for which an agreement to sell with the companyplainants respondents had already been terminated.
In order to develop a Ghat on the bank of river Ganga near Sapatrishi Ashram in Hardwar, the Sabha issued an advertisement in the newspapers it invited bids from the eligible civil companytractors to companystruct the Ghat in companysideration of 13.5 Bighas approximately of its land situated in old Khasra No.140 and new Khasra Nos.61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and part of 89, 90 in village Haripur Kalan, Rishikesh, Dehradun out of the total land of 26 Bighas owned by the Sabha.
Some of the objects of the Sabha are to open and maintain temples, dharamshalas, ashrams and to manage schools and companyleges for the overall development of children.
Aggrieved by the filing of the false and incorrect charge sheet in the companyrt of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in Criminal Case No.1728 of 2003 titled State v. Inder Mohan Goswami Others, the appellants filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.248 of 2003 in the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital under section 482 Cr.
The Sabha was registered in the year 1949 under the Societies Registration Act.
The numberice informed the general public about the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney given to respondent number4.
On 5.1.2000, both the parties i.e. the representative of the Sabha and the representatives of M s Ahuja Builders met at the site of the disputed land in the presence of Patwari Revenue Official .
The trial companyrt has number properly companyprehended the companyplete investigation reports, which were companyducted by two different investigating officers.
According to the appellants, the Sabha made several requests to respondent number.3 and 4 asking them to pay the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/ .
The appellants submitted that first appellant cancelled the power of attorney by a registered cancellation deed after informing respondent number4.
The trial companyrt gravely erred in number appreciating the companyplete facts of the case in the proper perspective.
The veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and the respondents can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction.
The Ghat was so companystructed by one Himmat Rai Ahuja, respondent number3 herein, on behalf of M s Ahuja Builders.
Thus, the issues relating to ascertaining the right, title of the land in dispute and also the issue of companyrect demarcation of land in Khasra No.140 are pending adjudication in a companypetent civil companyrt.
On the same date, a receipt of Rs.17,92,000/ lakhs approximately was issued by the Sabha to respondent number3 as an adjustment towards the companyt of companystruction of the Ghat for which the said land of 13.5 Bighas was transferred by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 13.12.1996 in favour of respondent number 3.
The balance land, after adjusting the land given in lieu of companystruction of the Ghat, came out to be 11.19 Bighas.
The said measurement sheet was endorsed by respondent number.3 and 4 and the representatives of the Sabha on 19.3.2000.
According to the appellants, time was the essence of the companytract and respondent number3 had failed to pay the balance amount by Rs.10,10,650/ .
In the companynter affidavit, it was also alleged that the loss had number been suffered by the appellants but in fact it had been suffered by the respondents.
Accordingly, the sale deeds executed by respondent number4 in favour of respondent number3 were illegal.
P.C whereas, according to the respondents, the High Court was justified in declining to quash the FIR because of the companyduct of the appellants.
It is averred that the Sabha from its inception is engaged in the work of uplifting backward and downtrodden people and is a grass root organization in the field of social development.
In this suit, respondent number3 prayed for cancellation of sale deed executed by the Sabha in favour of Sunil Kumar and for permanent injunction against the appellants herein restraining them from interfering in his alleged property.
He thus had to pay the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/ .
Arising out of SLP Criminal No.3658 of 2004 Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted.
The FIR was registered on 23.4.2003 as Case No.26 of 2003 under sections 420, 467 and 120 B IPC.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, initiating criminal proceedings by the respondents against the appellants is clearly an abuse of the process of the companyrt.
On the request of respondent number3, the Sabha reduced the amount owed of Rs.1,50,000/ to him in view of the existence of a passage on the said land.
A civil suit has already been filed and is pending adjudication.
The appellants who are office bearers of a charitable organization, namely, Sanatan Dharma Pratinidhi Sabha, in order to protect the interests of the Sabha cancelled the Power of Attorney by executing a registered Cancellation Deed after giving numberice to the Power of Attorney holders.
In reply to the said numberice, respondent number3 vide his reply dated 5.5.1999 stated that he had number defaulted in payment of the remaining amount.
The Sabha had sent a legal numberice dated 3.4.1999 first legal numberice to respondent number3 to fulfill his companytractual obligations under the sale agreement and informing that if he failed to do so, the agreement to sell would stand cancelled and the amount paid as earnest money would be forfeited.
The High Court by order dated 16.7.2004 dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.
On 30.4.2001, appellant number1 sent a legal numberice second numberice to respondent number.3 and 4 informing them that if the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/ was number paid, he would have to cancel the General Power of Attorney.
Moreover, it seeks to open hospitals for the poor and to develop the physical and mental state of the youth etc.
On the same day the parties executed an agreement to sell the remaining land situated at Old Khasra No.140 and new Khasra No.89 in Village Haripur Kalan, Rishikesh at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/ per Bigha which was approx.
Later on the investigation was transferred to Rishikesh Police Station.
Respondent number3 had already paid Rs.4,00,000/ as earnest money out of this amount.
According to the appellants, in order to protect the interest of the Sabha, the remaining land of 11.19 Bighas of Khasra No.140 was sold to one Sunil Kumar on as is where is basis on 18.12.2002.
Therefore, the need of a fresh power of attorney was felt and respondent number3 desired that the fresh Power of Attorney be executed in the name of his son, Suresh Ahuja respondent number4 herein for the very same 13.5 Bighas of land in regard to which earlier Power of Attorney dated 13.12.1996 had been given.
A public numberice of the same was also published by the Sabha in a local newspaper Amar Ujala, a Hindi daily on 25.10.2002.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
The land of old Khasra No.140 and new Khasra Nos.61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and part of 89, 90 was measured by the Patwari.
The appellants submitted that the High Court gravely erred in dismissing the application under section 482 Cr.
Thereafter, the investigation was again transferred to Raiwala Police Station and a charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh.
All of this was only done after appellants had given respondents due numberice.
Basic Facts In 1923, Pt.
The respondents earnest money had been forfeited.
He stated in the reply that as per the agreement the land had to be measured and that he was ready to pay the balance amount once that was done.
The Special Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 12th May, 2005 had issued summons to respondent number.3 and 4.
The General Power of Attorney executed by Late Mohan Lal Sharma, President of the Sabha, had ceased to be in effect after his death.
Out of the balance of Rs.8,60,650/ , a further companycession of Rs.60,650/ was given to Respondent number3.
The appellants had to file an application under Section 482 Cr.
The Sabha sold the land to Sunil Kumar only after respondent number.3 and 4 failed to fulfill their obligations under the companytract and had mala fide intention to grab the land without paying the balance amount.
Accordingly, General Secretary of the Sabha, appellant number1 herein, executed a fresh General Power of Attorney on 15.1.2000 in respect of 13.5 Bighas of land situated in part of Old Khasra No.140 new Khasra Nos.
This amount was paid by respondent number3 on 21.3.1997 and the balance amount of Rs.10,10,650/ had to be paid by 31.3.1997.
P.C. because the Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh issued a number bailable warrant against the appellants on the basis of First Information Report under Sections 420/467 IPC filed by the respondents.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th July, 2004 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.248 of 2003 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short Cr.
The appellants submitted that in the impugned judgment, the High Court had also disregarded the settled legal position crystallized by various judgments of this companyrt and declined to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
The total sale companysideration for this land worked out to be Rs.15,10,650/ .
Respondent number3 filed another companyplaint on the same day, i.e. 23.4.2003, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun and got the FIR registered against the appellant and three other persons.
The criminal case was registered as Case No.1306 of 2003 titled as M. Goswami v. Suresh Ahuja.
The cancellation was necessary to protect its interests because respondent number4 was selling the Sabhas land by misusing the power of attorney.
The companytroversy between the parties is purely of a civil nature.
Madan Mohan Malviya founded Sanatan Dharma Pratinidhi Sabha, Punjab hereinafter referred as the Sabha .
