Allowed

Yogesh Bharadwaj and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2021A482/18901/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash criminal proceedings in a civil accounting dispute regarding a sugar cane contract allocation. The court held that the allegations did not establish criminal breach of trust and allowed the application to quash the order and proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 1.5.2009 and the proceeding in Complaint Case No. 132/2009 against the applicants are quashed.

Yogesh Bharadwaj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18901 of 2009

¶3

Applicant :- Yogesh Bharadwaj And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yashwant Varma, I.K.Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Saurabh Chaturvedi, Advocate, holding brief of Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kairana, Muzaffarnagar, as well as the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 132/2009 (Yashveer Singh vs. Yogesh Bharadwaj & Anr.), under Sections 406 and 506 IPC.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires, a complaint had been lodged with the allegation that the complainant had paid Rs. 20,000/(in cash) to the present applicants to obtain, effectively, a a contract to grow and harvest sugarcane on specified land on profit sharing basis. As to the grant of that contract, there is no complaint. In fact, the complainant alleges, he was granted possession over the agricultural field and that he carried out certain improvements on the same, at his own cost. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties solely with respect to the payment of moneys, etc. It is thus alleged in the complaint that the applicants had not returned to the complainant Rs. 20,000/paid by him at the time of obtaining the contract and the applicants have further not paid Rs. 1,22,410/- to the complainant with respect to price of the sugar-cane crop sold by him to the sugar mill - M/s Monnet Sugar Limited, of which the present applicants have been described as employees.

¶8

The statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. do not bring out any other or further fact. The evidence referred to in the complaint and in the statements recorded at this stage only bring out a pure accounting dispute between the parties. It is purely civil in nature.

¶9

Leaving all courses open to the complainant to pursue his civil remedy, if any, the criminal prosecution appears to have been lodged only to pressure the applicants, with respect to the civil dispute. No ingredients of the offence alleged are made out, in such circumstances. A civil right over money that the complainant may claim, does not ipso facto , give rise to the ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust. In absence of any element of entrustment being established, a dispute between the parties who were partners to a business arrangement cannot give rise to offence under Section 406 IPC. The other allegations appear to have been made to lend colour to the story. The applicants are admittedly officers of the corporation with whom the complainant had entered into a written contract. Dispute arising in such circumstances has to looked in that context. In absence of specific occurrence duly evidenced, it is too risky to allow such a vague prosecution to proceed.

¶10

In view of the facts noted above, the ingredients of offence are not made out, against the applicants.

¶11

Accordingly, the present application is allowed . The order dated 1.5.2009 and the proceeding against the applicants in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.11.2021 Prakhar

Yogesh Bharadwaj and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Bharadwaj and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ali Akbar @ Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chain Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Balkar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Modanwal and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another