Allowed

Smt. Reena v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2023CRLA/5574/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the criminal appeal against the dismissal of a complaint filed under Section 203 Cr. P.C. The high court set aside the impugned order because it was against the evidence on record. The court held the trial court misread evidence regarding the timeline of the appellant's complaint versus the respondent's subsequent FIR.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.05.2019 dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order.

Smt. Reena Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168955

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5574 of 2019 Appellant :- Smt. Reena Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Narayan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge/ Special Judge SC/ST Act in S.S.T. Complaint No. 61 of 2018 (Reena Versus Mishri Lal Sahu) under Section 420, 406, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Banpur, District- Lalitpur.

¶7

By the impugned order dated 28.05.2019, the Special Judge SC/ST Act rejected the complaint of the appellant under Section 203 Cr. P.C.

¶8

As per facts of the case, an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. dated 12.04.2016 was filed by the appellant against the opposite party no.2 with the allegation that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste community, her husband Pahalwan and her father-in-law Kshakki had taken loan from the Punjab National Bank, Banpur for purchase of a Tractor. Regarding this loan, Rs. 2,60,000/- was due. When the appellant along with her mother Smt. Jamuna went to Punjab National Bank, Branch Banpur on 04.12.2015 for deposit of this remaining loan amount. After filling the voucher, she reached at the cash counter for depositing the amount, but the cashier refused to accept the amount saying that the time was over. The appellant went in the office of the Branch Manager, namely, Mishirlal Sahu. Branch Manager Mishri Lal Sahu asked her to meet outside the bank. When the appellant along with her mother reached there, the opposite party no.2 took Rs. 2,60,000/- from her and asked her to take receipt after words. When the appellant went to take receipt on 05.04.2016 along with her mother, the Branch Manager did not give him receipt and hurled case based words and abuses and expelled them from his cabin. The appellant also gave her threat of life. The appellant went to police station for lodging the report but her report was not

¶9

lodged, hence the prayer was made to lodge an FIR through application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C..

¶10

This application was registered as complaint case. The statement of the victim-appellant and her witnesses were recorded and after that by impugned order dated 12.04.2016, the complaint of the appellant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P.C.

¶11

It is argued that when the appellant demanded her money back or receipt of deposit of money, the opposite party no.2 lodged a first information report on 20.01.2017 by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. dated 25.10.2016. When the charge sheet was filed against her under Sections 504, 506 and 353 I.P.C., the charge sheet and the entire criminal proceedings of that Case Crime No. 0039 of 2017 were challenged by her by moving an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

¶12

In the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. No. 9724 of 2018 on 29.03.2018 order "no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant in Case Crime No. 0039 of 2017" was passed by this Court. The trial court on the basis of police report has wrongly come to the conclusion that present complaint has been filed to pressurize the opposite party no.2 to enter into a compromise in Case Crime No. 39 of 2017 filed by the opposite party no.2, though case filed by the opposite party no.2 is of the year 2017 while complaint filed by the appellant is of the year 2016. It is argued that court has misread the evidence available on record and has passed the impugned order with wrong finding.

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that the facts mentioned in the complaint are totally wrong. The process of loan was initiated by him on the application of the her husband and father-in-law and the loan was sanctioned by him. Regarding due amount, notices were sent to them, in retaliation this false complaint has been filed against him. Regarding the incident dated 17.10.2016 he had filed a first information report on 20.01.2017 through an application under Section 156 Cr. P.C. Thus prayer is made to dismiss the appeal.

¶14

From the perusal of the record,it is found that in the application under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. of the appellant, which was registered as a complaint, the incident is shown to be of 04.12.2015. That on 04.12.20215 appellant along with her mother went to Punjab National Bank, Branch Banpur for depositing the loan amount of 2,60,000 Rs. and when she reached at the cash counter for depositing the amount, the cashier refused to accept

¶15

the amount saying that time was over and her amount could not be deposited. The Branch Manger of the bank suggested her that he would deposit the money next day in the bank and after that she may take receipt of the same. Neither the amount was deposited in the account of her husband and father-in-law nor the receipt was given to her. The version of the opposite party no.2 is that when the notices were issued from the bank regarding the due amount towards her husband and father-in-law of the appellant, this false complaint was filed by her. But no notice of demand has been placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Trial court found that there was no account of the appellant in the bank concerned, it may be true because as per appellants he had given the amount to the manager to deposit the same in the loan account of her husband and father-in-law and not in her own account. If there is no account in the name of the appellant in the bank concerned, it can not be a ground of rejecting the complaint under Section 203 Cr. P.C. So far as the finding of the trial court, that to pressurize the opposite party no.2 for entering into a compromise in Case Crime No. 0039 of 2017, this false complaint has been filed is concerned, this finding of the trial court is incorrect. Admittedly Case Crime No. 0039 of 2017 was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the appellant on the basis of his application dated 25.10.2016 moved under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. wherein a first information report was lodged on 20.01.2017 while application of the appellant under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. regarding the incident dated 04.12.2015 is dated 12.04.2016. Thus , complaint was filed by the appellant much earlier than the first information report lodged by the opposite party No.2. Thus, trial court has mentioned wrong fact in its order. Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence filed by the appellant in the trial court.

¶16

In the opinion of the court, the impugned order being against the evidence available on record, is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Appeal is allowed .

¶18

Impugned order dated 28.05.2019 dismissing the complaint of the appellant under Section 203 Cr. P.C. is hereby set aside. Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint of the appellant on the basis of discussion made above.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.8.2023

¶20

T.S.

¶21

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

Smt. Reena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reena 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

Amarvati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kavita Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Vishwa Prakash Pandey

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others

Parmanand Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parveen Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others