Allowed

Ram Newal Yadav v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2022/4757/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allyahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings alleging cheating regarding a diesel pump set after a consumer forum awarded compensation and the dealer undertook payment. Ram Newal Yadav must pay the awarded amount or face restoration of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Applications for quashing of criminal cases allowed; proceedings quashed. Applicants directed to pay compensation to complainant; failure to pay deems applications dismissed and proceedings revived.

Ram Newal Yadav Vs the State of U.P and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4757 of 2013 Applicant :- Ram Newal Yadav Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,S P Dwivedi

¶2

And

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3312 of 2014 Applicant :- Ram Bhawan Ram Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,S.P. Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard and gone through the record.

¶6

By way of Application No.4757 of 2013 the applicant has prayed for quashing of Criminal Case No.8172, under Sections 420, 468, 120-B and 427 IPC (Mahendra Prakash Vs. Ram Bhawan Ram and another) relating to Police Station Akhand Nagar, District Sultanpur and for quashing of order dated 16.07.2011 passed by the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18 Sultanpur by means of which the applicants have been summoned to face trial.

¶7

By way of Application No.3312 of 2014 the applicant has prayed for quashing of Complaint Case No.8172, (Mahendra Prakash Vs. Ram Bhawan Ram and another) under Sections 420, 120-B, 504, 506, 427, 468, 500 and 467 IPC relating to Police Station Akhand Nagar, District Sultanpur and for quashing of the order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18 Sultanpur by means of which non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.

¶8

As it comes out, the respondent no. 2 took a loan of Rs.35,000/- from Bank of Baroda to purchase a diesel engine pump set; the said amount was paid directly to dealer, Amit Machinery Corporation; the pump set, which was given to the complainant, did not work properly and the complainant believed that it was a second-hand machinery, which was handed over to him, and he was cheated by the authorized dealer as well as bank officials in connivance of each other; the complainant tried to return the machinery, but it was not taken back; therefore, the complainant filed Complaint Case No.8172 of 2009 and the learned Magistrate, after perusing the complaint and considering statements of the complainant and witnesses, summoned the accused to face trial for the offences, mentioned

¶9

above.

¶10

Mr. Bajrang Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the complainant simultaneously filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum (now the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) and the said complaint has been decided in favour of the complainant and it has been held that there was deficiency in service. The order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sultanpur has been tendered before the Court. As per the said order, the dealer has been directed to pay Rs.35,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost. It has been further directed that if the said amount is not paid within a period of one month then the dealer shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% per annum on the amount awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants, on oral instructions, submit that the dealer, who has filed Appeal No.288 of 2022 against the order dated 26.07.2021 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission will pay the amount, as directed, within one month, to the complainant.

¶12

Considering the fact that the impugned criminal proceedings were instituted for alleged deficiency of service for which the complainant has been adequately compensated and the dealer undertakes to implement the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the continuation of the proceedings against the applicants would be unjustified and an abuse of process of the Court. In view thereof, the applications are allowed. Consequently, the impugned proceedings are hereby quashed. However, the applicants shall also withdraw the appeal, as stated above, filed against the order of District Commission.

¶13

Applicant in Application No.4757 of 2013 (Ram Newal Yadav) is directed to pay the entire amount, as directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated 26.07.2021 to the complainant within a period of one month from today. In case, he fails to pay the amount, as directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, his application shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the impugned criminal proceedings will continue against him and reach to its logical conclusion.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.7.2022 MVS/-

¶15

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.07.22 18:58:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Newal Yadav v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Newal Yadav v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtar Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy.Deptt. of Home and Another

Mohammad Akib Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Home Deptt Lko and Anr.

State of U.P. Vs Mohammad Zahid

Balram Tiwari @ Shiv Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. in the Deptt. of Home and Another