Dismissed

Rajesh Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2022A482/27152/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Application under s. 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash a summons order in a cheating case. The High Court held that the prima facie case disclosed criminal offence despite civil dispute allegations, distinguishing cited precedents, and dismissed the application without abusing court process.

What did the court decide?

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summons order dismissed.

Rajesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27152 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav,Bhola Nath Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This criminal misc. application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order dated 19.09.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur in the case no.315 of 2018 (Pappu vs. Rajesh and ors) as well as the entire proceedings under Section 417/34, 323/34, 504/34 IPC P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Khaga, Fatehpur.

¶8

The opposite party no.2 moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants alleging therein that accused Rajesh Singh who is close to the complainant, asked the complainant for purchase of a plot saying that it belongs to his brother-in-law Laxman Singh and maternal nephew ( Bhanja) Neeraj Singh. In presence of Santosh Singh, sale consideration of Rs. 10 lacs was agreed and all of the three accused asked to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- within a month and rest amount to be paid at the time of Registry. The complainant on various dates, transferred different amounts of money from his bank account in the bank account of Neeraj Singh and Rajesh Singh and has also given some amount in cash. After some time when complainant asked the accused-persons to execute the sale deed then they make excuses. The complainant become suspicious

¶9

and after enquiry, it was found that there was no plot of Laxman Singh. When complainant demand his money back then Rajesh Singh said that he will returne it on 23.10.2017. On that date the complainant reached the house of the Rajesh Singh where they refused to repay the money abused him, threatened him and assaulted him. This application was registered as a complaint case. After enquiry, under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate by the impugned order have summoned the accused applicants to face trial for offence under sections 417/34, 323/34, 504 and 506 IPC.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the impugned order is illegal, bad in law and has been passed without application of judicial mind. Applicants are innocent and have not committed any offence. They have been falsely implicated only with the intention to harass the applicants. The entire story set up in the complaint is false and frivolous. The true facts are that the opposite party no.2 is Phupha and Smt. Saroj Devi is Bua in distant relation of the family of applicant no.1 and the applicants lent the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the opposite party no.2 in the year 2016 and same was returned back by the opposite party no.2 in the account of the applicants. It is further contended that dispute is of civil nature and no criminal offence is made out. Learned counsel placed reliance on the citations of 2022 LL (SC) 153 (Shafiya Khan alias Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and anr) and LL 2021 SC 592 (Mithilesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka & ors) and submitted that it is the settled principle of law that dispute is of civil nature cannot be converted into the criminal proceedings. The impugned order has been passed without considering the materials on record. It is also contended that averments made in the complaint and the statement under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. are contradictory and inconsistent

¶11

and no particulars of entire transaction are given and there is no ingredients of cheating.

¶12

Learned AGA submitted that the complaint contains all details/ payments made to the applicants by the opposite party no.2 and affidavit filed in support of it also contains the same. It is further contended that from the allegations of the FIR, it is clear that accused applicants have played fraud with the opposite party no.2 and has cheated him and has taken Rs. 2,50,000/from him by this way. So it cannot be said that no criminal offence is made out.

¶13

There are specific allegations in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which has been treated as a complaint, about the criminal conduct of the applicants. There are details of the amounts paid through banks and also by cash. There is also specific incident dated 23.10.2017. A transaction may draw both civil as well as criminal liability and a criminal case can run parallel to a civil proceedings if any criminal liability also exists. From the allegations, a criminal case is made out. In the present case, the allegations of the complaint prima-facie discloses a criminal offence. The learned Magistrate being satisfied with it has taken congnizance by detailed and reasoned order explaining all the facts and evidence produced before him.

¶14

The citation relied on, by the learned counsel for the applicants do not apply in the present set of facts due to aforesaid reasons.

¶15

There is nothing on record to show that complaint has been moved with malicious intention or it is an abuse of the process of law, summoning order has no infirmity or illegality and continuation of proceedings also cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of court.

¶16

At this Stage only prima-facie case is to be seen as propounded

¶17

by the Supreme Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶18

This criminal misc. application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. lack merits and is hereby dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- 4.3.2022 C. MANI

¶20

Digitally signed by CHANDRAMANI VERMA Date: 2022.03.07 09:49:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Singh and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jairam Maurya Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vipin Bihari Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shareef Ahmad @ Shareef Kuraishi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Zaki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maheshchandra Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others