Blog

Case Title – Sharif Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 363

Case Number – CRL. APPEAL Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 1074 of 2017 with CRL. APPEAL Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 9482 of 2021 and CRL. APPEAL Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 5419 of 2022

Dated on – 1^st May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Sanjiv Khanna

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Sharif Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 363, revolves around a dispute of the property regarding a Property No. 80-A, covering 23.072 Sq.ft., part of Khasra No. 1016/647 and 645, situated in Chandrawali/Shahdara, now in Abadi, at Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The Appellant No. 2, Sharif Ahmad, and the Appellant No. 3, Anwar Ahmad (now deceased), bought a part of the property on behalf of their partnership firm Dream Land & Co. Appellant No.1, Vakil Ahmad (also deceased), obtained another portion individually. The Respondent No.2, Mohd. Iqbal, instituted FIR No. 108/2016 against the Appellants under Section 420, 406, and 506 of the India Penal Code, 1860, alleging failure to register the property and refund the advance payment. The FIR was challenged by the Appellants and chargesheet through various legal avenues, including petitions before the Allahabad High Court seeking for the quashing of the proceedings were framed. The chargesheet alleged breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but did not detect an offense under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court, in this present case, inspected the legal provisions related to the criminal offenses mentioned in the chargesheet, inclusive of the Section 406, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, accentuating the need of fulfilling the essentials elements of each offense. The court, in this present case, allowed the appeal arising from the SLP (Crl.) No. 1074/2017, quashing the criminal proceedings against the Appellants. Moreover, the appeal arising from the SLP (Crl.) No. 5419/2022 was allowed, granting anticipatory bail to the Appellants Imran and Kamaluddin. The court, in this case, stated the concerns over the misuse of criminal proceedings to settle the Civil disputes and reprimanded against the issuance of the non-bailable warrants without decent vindication. The court, in this case, ordered for the re-examination of the case against the Manager Singh taking into consideration the examination made, accentuating the need for fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the chargesheet instituted against them was sham and bogus and was lacking proper investigation and that the chargesheet failed to establish any offense against them under Sections 405, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that concerning the offenses under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there was no involvement of the entrustment of property and that mere transactions like sale or exchange of property do not compose entrustment, and thus, the charge of criminal breach of trust was not applicable.
3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that regarding the offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at the time of the agreement, there was no evidence of dishonest or fraudulent inducement and that there was absence of essential element of fraudulent intent, hence, depicting the charge of cheating inapplicable.
4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that concerning the offenses under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there was no sufficient evidence to prove the intention of the Appellants to intimidate the complainant and that they alleged threats were no supported by reliable evidences.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellants had committed the offense of breach of trust by not refunding the solemn money received for the sale of property and that there was refusal on the part of the Appellants to register the property or return the money regardless of repeated plea, hence the violation of the Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellants had dishonestly induced the complainant into the transaction related to the property by making false pledges and that the Appellants had received the solemn money but there was a failure on the part of the Appellants to fulfil their obligations, committing the offense of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that concerning the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, evidence regarding threats made by the Appellants to the complainants and his family was presented by the Respondent and that the actions of the Appellants inculcated fear and amounted to criminal intimidation.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
2. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust
3. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Intimidation
4. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy
5. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Voluntarily Causing Hurt
6. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
7. Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Attempt to commit culpable homicide
8. Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
9. Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prescribes the power of the police officer to investigate the cognizable case
10. Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prescribes that the Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused

ISSUES

1. The main issue of the case whirls around whether the chargesheet instituted against the Appellants under Sections 405, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was valid?
2. Whether the actions of the Appellants amounted to Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, and Criminal Intimidation as defined under the relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
3. Whether the evidences exhibited by both the parties to constitute the conduction of the offenses and the accountability of the Appellants copious?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Sharif Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 363, scrupulously critiqued the contents of the chargesheet and discovered that it was lacking satisfactory evidence to prove the alleged offenses. The pivotal analysis of the chargesheet spotlighted the inadequacy in the case of the Prosecution, presaging the failure in establishment of a prima facie case against the Appellants. The court, in the present case, on the basis of the legal analysis and assessment of the facts, annulled the charges framed against the Appellants and quashed the criminal proceedings against the Appellants, stating the absence of the ample evidence to proceed with the case. The court, in this case, allowed the anticipatory bail for certain Appellants, taking into consideration the situations of the case and the principles of justice. The court warned against the misuse of the criminal proceedings for civil disputes and issued the directives for fair and justifiable handling of the case against Manager Singh, upholding the integrity of the legal process.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment