Allowed

Mukesh Kesarwani v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2023/1242/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) quashed the chargesheet and pending criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant based on an alleged violation of a civil agreement involving a money dispute, holding that such civil disputes do not warrant criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned chargesheet No. 1/2009 dated 16.03.2009 and the entire proceedings of case no. 265/2010 are quashed.

Mukesh Kesarwani Vs the State of U.P and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:79682

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1242 of 2012

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Kesarwani Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Kr Veer Bhanu Singh,A.M.Khan,F.A.Osmany Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Present petition is listed in the cause list in the category of cases not to be adjourned.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nikhil Singh, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶9

"To quash the impugned chargeshet No. 1/2009, dated 16.03.2009, in crime no.126 of 2008, under section 420. 467,468,506 I. P.C, P.S.Talkatora, pending in the court of A.GJ.M. III, Lucknow and also be pleased to quash the proceedings pending in the court of A.C.J.M.III vide case no. 265/2010, State Vs. Mukesh Kesharwani and fixed for 29.4.2012, contained in Annexure no.l to this application."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that only with the intention to victimize the petitioner FIR of case in question was filed as there was some money dispute between the parties and all the due amount has already been paid by the petitioner to the private respondent even though the FIR of case in question was lodged and during the investigation all the evidences were provided to the Investigating Officer but the same were not taken into consideration and the chargesheet was filed in the most mechanical manner. He further submitted that in case the private respondent is aggrieved then she should file money suit before the competent Court, criminal proceedings is abuse of process of law. He also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that after investigation chargesheet has already been filed but he does not dispute this fact that there was some dispute related to violation of the agreement which was executed between the parties.

¶12

Considering submission of rival parties and going through the contents of petition as well as other relevant documents, merely on the basis of violation of some agreement between the parties criminal proceedingns have been initiated, which is not permissible.

¶13

Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned chargeshet No. 1/2009, dated 16.03.2009, in crime no.126 of 2008, under section 420. 467,468,506 I. P.C, P.S.Talkatora, pending in the court of A.GJ.M. III, Lucknow as well as the entire proceedings of case no. 265/2010, State Vs. Mukesh Kesharwani are quashed. The present application is allowed .

¶14

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.12.2023 Vipul

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Kesarwani v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kesarwani 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahmad Jamal Qadiree Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunit Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Himanshu Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Sushma Misra and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Prakash Nandwani Vs the State of U.P and Ors.

Yogesh Tyagi Vs the State of U.P and Anr.