TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 lakhs and purchased a house at Shanthi Nagar for Rs. 46.00 lakhs on 19-5-2008 and gave the rooms in the house on rent. The accused, who was his distant relative, a police constable belonged to ARPC 817, took a room on monthly basis. He also used to collect rents from other tenants. The complainant believed him on all aspects. The complainant was constructing a house at his native place and intended to mortgage the house at Shanthi Nagar and to obtain loan from the bank. The accused took him twice to the bank for securing the loan and saying that delay was occurring for getting loan, gave an amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs in 2 installments and took him to registration office, made him believe that for obtaining mortgage from the bank, registration had to be done as per the bank procedure, prepared registration documents and obtained his signatures over the papers and took his original house documents stating that the original documents should be kept with the bankers. Subsequently, on 5-7-2012 he came to know through his relatives that the accused got registered the house on his name, approached the registration office and noticed that the accused got registered the house on his name. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistrate failed to see that the entire case was civil in nature and the criminal proceedings were not maintainable and prayed to allow the revision. 6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant contended that the complainant was innocent, being his relative, he believed the petitioner-accused, the family members of the complainant also believed him. The departmental enquiry proceedings were not binding on criminal Court and prayed to dismiss the revision. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the complainant signed on the sale deed considering it as mortgage deed, the contents of declaration was not explained to him in vernacular language, there was no error in the order of the trial Court to be corrected in this revision and prayed to dismiss the revision. 8. Perused the record. Since this revision is filed against the discharge petition, the truthfulness of the allegations levelled by the complainant or the weight of the defence evidence cannot be determined at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the availability of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 would not exclude the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising there from) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly as alleged in the above crime and sale deed was executed before the joint Sub-Registrar in the presence of two witnesses and thus the matter of purchasing the house fraudulently would not arise and held the count No. 2 as not proved. 13. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the departmental enquiry proceedings were not binding on the criminal Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Ors. 2020 (9) SCC 636, wherein it was held that: "31. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating authority and in case the accused is exonerated before the adjudicating authority whether his prosecution on the same set of facts can be allowed or not is the precise question which falls for determination in this case." After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in paragraph 38 as follows:- "38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be state....