Allowed

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2022/1298/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The dispute arose from a civil agreement to sale where cheque dishonour was alleged by the opposite party. Since the matter was essentially civil in nature, continuing the criminal proceedings was deemed an abuse of the process of the court.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings of FIR/Case Crime No.0845 of 2018 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, police station Gazipur, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magist

Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1298 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui,Chandan Srivastava,Yogesh Somvanshi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings of FIR/Case Crime No.0845 of 2018 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow pending in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow, impugned charge-sheet dated 24.11.2018, cognizance order dated 02.01.2019.

¶7

2. Mr.Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in question has came to be registered allegedly for non performance of agreement to sale dated 30.08.2012. He submits that the complainant himself has not honored the agreement inasmuch as he gave two cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- which got dishonored for stop payment and second one for self due as well as account payee. It has been further said that the complainant has filed a Civil Suit No.170 of 2013 along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 for temporary injunction.

¶8

3. Learned Civil Judge vide detailed order dated 11.03,2013 has dismissed the said application.

¶9

4. This Court finds that the dispute between the parties is essentially of civil in nature in respect of agreement to sale dated 03.08.2012. In several cases, it has been held that dispute which is essentially of civil in nature and has been given cloak of the criminal offence, the Court should quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

¶10

5. Considering the conduct of the opposite party No.3 himself as well as case pertains to civil dispute in respect of the performance of agreement dated 30.08.2012, this Court finds substance in the submissions of Mr.Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that continuance of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶11

6. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed . Impugned proceedings of FIR/Case Crime No.0845 of 2018 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow pending in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow, impugned charge-sheet dated 24.11.2018, cognizance order dated 02.01.2019 are hereby quashed.

¶12

( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )

¶13

Order Date :- 23.8.2022

¶14

prateek

¶15

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.08.23 18:20:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ors.

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

Jai Jai Ram and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Mithilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Furkan and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Vasail Ahmad and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Vijay Veer Singh and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.