Allowed

Smt. Neeraj Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2018A482/2655/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed summons order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against applicants in a criminal complaint alleging cheating and breach of trust. Court held allegations were absurd, inspired by vengeance during unresolved family litigation, and did not disclose an offence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 26.11.2016 and consequential proceedings against applicants were quashed.

Smt. Neeraj Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2655 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Neeraj Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Sunder,Varun Dev Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of summoning order dated 26.11.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Meerut in Complaint No.64/2014 (Ramesh Kumar Yadav vs. Smt. Neeraj Yadav and others), u/s 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Inchauli, District-Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Meerut.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.

¶7

Submission of counsel for the applicants is that perusal of the complaint would show that most of the allegations that relate to the charge of defamation, emanated from the allegations that were made before the lawful authorities, as certain cases were filed and certain reports were made, which it was the right of the applicants to exercise. Whether the allegations are right or wrong has to be determined by the concerned authorities and it cannot be said that simply because a man brought a charge against somebody in the court or has lodged a F.I.R. against somebody in the police station, it would constitute an offence of defamation. It has been further contended that the complaint is a long winded version made by the complainant and is in most part of it very vague and non specific. It has been further submitted that so far as the charges under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C. are concerned, there is absolutely nothing in the complaint to substantiate the charge. If the two persons have locked their horns in litigations, there may arise a stage where they may compromise the private dispute interse in between themselves on certain terms and conditions. The money which is said to have been paid by the complainant was in the form

¶8

of bank draft and the allegation that the complainant was forced to do so appears to be a preposterous allegation. The applicant no.1 was married to son of opposite party no.2 and the submission is that after his death she and other family members have been made to suffer and face entirely false allegations in that regard and false reports have been lodged against them with malice. At any rate, so far as the continuation of various litigations is concerned, they could not be brought to an amicable solution because the other side completely refused to give the rights of the applicant no.1 in the property and wanted to completely disinherit her from all claims which she legitimately has, being the wife of son of opposite party no.2, who is no more. Actually the terms and conditions, that were supposed to be fulfilled, have not been fulfilled by the opposite party no.2 itself and that is why the litigations could not be brought to an end amicably. The contention is that if in the process of understanding certain money was given as an amount of maintenance, it shall be wholly unreasonable to make an allegation on that basis that the same amount has been received by fraud or that there was any cheating involved in that process or that there was any such breach of trust which may constitute an offence u/s 406 I.P.C. Submission is that in fact complaint does not disclose any such ingredients which may constitute offences and the impugned order summoning the accused on the basis of allegations made in the complaint deserves its quashing. The litigations which are going on may be decided on the basis of their own inherent or intrinsic merits and no party can be forced to withdraw the same.

¶9

In rebuttal, counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has submitted that the money in question that was given in the form of bank draft was given with the understanding that all the pending litigations between applicants and opposite party no.2 shall be brought to an end and as the applicants want more money they are trying to exploit the opposite party no.2, and therefore, the amount which the opposite party no.2 had given in the form of bank draft must be held to have been given and obtained as a result of cheating and fraud, and therefore, summoning of the accused is well justified and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶10

Record has been perused in the light of rival submissions that has been made by the counsels appearing at the Bar.

¶11

It is apparent on the face of record that after the death of son of opposite party no.2, number of litigations proliferated. If in the process of negotiation between the parties to amicably settle the matter, certain money was handed over in the form of bank draft, it does not appear to be an act of cheating or fraud. Why the negotiation could not be successfully completed and who is at fault and who did not fulfil the terms and conditions that might have been arrived at in between the parties during the course of negotiation, is very difficult to comprehend or predict. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations that have been made in the complaint do not appear to have constituted any offence and they appear to be inspired more by feelings of vengeance and rancour and on the face of it appear to be malafide, and therefore, for the same reasons the impugned order and consequent proceeding against the applicants deserve quashing. In this regard we may usefully keep in perspective the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, in which certain categories have been recognized on the basis of which the criminal proceeding against a certain party or the accused may be quashed. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case as follows:-

¶12

" The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

¶13

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶14

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶15

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶16

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶17

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶18

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶19

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶20

In the considered view of this Court this matter falls both in category nos.(1) and (7), and therefore, the impugned order or proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶21

In this view of the matter this application is allowed and the impugned order as well as its consequential proceedings against the accused-applicants stand quashed.

¶22

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.7.2018 M. Kumar

Smt. Neeraj Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neeraj Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Gujar Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Ramgiri Vs State of U.P.

Mange Ram Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra and Anr. Vs State of U.P.