Allowed

Ram Naresh Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2023A482/22969/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed the summoning order and entire criminal proceedings for cheating. The Court observed the dispute over orchard auctions was civil and contractual, involving a public servant without prior sanction, making the case not suitable for criminal prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 22.05.2017 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6189 of 2016 under Section 420 I.P.C. are quashed.

Ram Naresh Verma Vs State of U.P. and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22969 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Naresh Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 22.05.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6189 of 2016, under Section - 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Ganj, District - Rampur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

¶7

Submission is, no prosecution may have emerged against the present applicant who was Superintendent of Government Horticulture, Rampur at the relevant time. Neither any prior sanction had been obtained before cognizance was taken in the present case to proceed against the applicant nor ingredient of offence alleged are made out. In that regard, it has been submitted, the opposite party no.2 had participated in the proceedings to auction mango orchard on 16.03.2016. Being the highest bidder, he was declared successful. Against that he deposited Rs. 1,26,060/- on 19.03.2016 and certain other amounts. There is no dispute as to the mango orchard auctioned to the opposite party no.2.

¶8

The claim was made by the opposite party no.2 with respect to wood-apple orchard auction. Neither the said auction was ever conducted nor concluded in favour of the opposite party no.2 nor there is evidence or material brought in the case diary as may suggest such occurrence. Third, it has been submitted, the dispute, if any, between the parties was purely civil in nature pertaining to auction of orchards and benefits derived therefrom. No criminal offence may ever have been initiated and no prosecution may remain pending on such allegations.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA would state, all defence are open to the

¶10

applicant to be taken before the learned court below.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, there is no dispute brought to the Court with respect to auction of mango orchard. The first complaint made by the opposite party no.2 dated 09.06.2016, to the present applicant, was only with respect to auction of woodapple orchard. No evidence appears to exist with respect to such auction having been ever concluded in favour of the opposite party no.2.

¶12

Then, more importantly, even if such auction had been made, the parties would remain bound by the terms of the contract. Amongst others, it was a stipulation between the parties that the opposite party no.2 would have a right to visit the orchard before finalisation of the contract. Therefore, if the opposite party no.2 alleges, there were no fruits to be harvested in the wood-apple orchard, he could not blame the applicant for the same. Inasmuch as he would have visited the orchard before making the offer.

¶13

In any case, the loss that the opposite party may have been suffered, if any, would remain a contractual liability for which no criminal prosecution may arise. It also merits consideration, no sanction appears to have taken to proceed against the applicant (public servant).

¶14

Accordingly, the present application is allowed . The summoning order dated 22.05.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6189 of 2016, under Section - 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Ganj, District - Rampur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur are quashed.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.1.2023 Abhilash

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Naresh Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Verma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Varun Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afroj and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Asha Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bal Govind Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mohammad Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another