Partly allowed

Vishal Rastogi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024A482/12236/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an impugned order of summoning under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in an alleged cheating case under Section 406. It held that the trial court failed to consider ingredients of the offence and gave no reasons. The matter was remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh order after hearing the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court to pass fresh order after hearing complainant within three months.

Vishal Rastogi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149132

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12236 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vishal Rastogi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

The impugned order dated 19.10.2023 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinafter :-

¶7

" ददिनननांक -19.10.2023

¶8

पररिवनदि पपेश हहआ। पतनवलली वनस्तपे आदिपेश हपेततु दनयत हहै। पररिवनदिली कपे अधधिवकतन कको पपूवर दतधथि परि सतुनन जन चतुकन हहै।

¶9

पररिवनदिली कन सनांके मम कथिन हहै दक दवपकलीगण प - दवशनल रिस्तकोगली व दवकनस रिस्तकोगली पररिवनदिली ककी दिपूसरिली पत्नली कपे बच्चपे हह। पररिवनदिली सपे दवपकलीगण नपे 14 लनख रुपयपे अपनन व्यनपनरि करिनपे कपे धलए थिपे , जको पररिवनदिली नपे लकोन कपे ततौरि परि ददिए थिपे। लगभग 5-6 मनह बनदि पररिवनदिली नपे रुपयपे वनपस करिनपे कको कहन तको उपरिकोक्त दवपकलीगण नपे रुपयपे दिपेनपे सपे मनन करि ददियन।

¶10

पररिवनदिली दनरिन अपनपे कथिन कपे समथिरन मम धिनरिन -200 मम स्वयनां कन बयनन तथिन धिनरिन -202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० मम पली०डब्ल्यपू० 01 कपे रूप मम वरनर गतुपन कको परिलीदकत करिनयन गयन।

¶11

पररिवनदिली दनरिन पररिवनदि मम दकयपे गयपे कथिननों व धिनरिन 200 एवनां धिनरिन 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० मम ददियपे सनक्ष्य कपे आधिनरि परि इस स्तरि परि दवपकलीगण - दवशनल रिस्तकोगली व दवकनस रिस्तकोगली कपे दनरिन प्रथिमदृष्टयन भन०दिनां०सनां० ककी धिनरिन -406 कपे तहत दिण्डनलीय अपरिनधि कनररित दकयन जननन प्रतलीत हकोतन हहै।

¶12

आदिपेश

¶13

तद्नतुसनरि अदभयतुक्तगण - दवशनल रिस्तकोगली व दवकनस रिस्तकोगली कको भन०दिनां०सनां० ककी धिनरिन -406 कपे अन्तगरत अपरिनधि मम दवचनरिण हपेततु जररियपे सम्मन आहहत दकयन जनतन हहै। पररिवनदिली आवश्यक पहैरिवली दिनधखल करिपे। सपूचली गवनहनन दिनधखल हको। पतनवलली वनस्तपे हनधजरिली ददिनननांक -17.11.2023 कको पपेश।"

¶14

Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court namely, Smt. Haneefa and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:112422 and Prem Kumar Panchal and 2 others Vs.

¶15

State of U.P. and Another, 2024:AHC:112428 and submits that not only the above referred impugned order is bereft of requisite reasons as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. but even the contents of statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are not mentioned in brief.

¶16

Learned counsel also submits that on basis of allegations in complaint, no offence could be made out under Section 406 Cr.P.C. since alleged dispute was a commercial dispute arising between father (complainant) and son(applicants/proposed accused) as well as that there is already a civil dispute pending between the parties.

¶17

I have considered the above submissions in the light of Smt. Haneefa and 4 others(supra) and for reference relevant paragraphs of it is reproduced hereinafter :-

¶18

"4. Aforesaid submissions has a merit and for that Court takes note of judgment passed by this Court in Application Under Section No.194 of 2024, Neutral Citation No.2024 AHC:110869, Anuj Gupta & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors , wherein a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, (2022) 7 SCC 124 has been relied upon.In order to make out a case under Section 405 I.P.C., there must be entrustment, however, in present case, according to complaint, would be bride side has not only refused to marry with would be groom, but have not returned the 'shagun', but there was no entrustment.

¶19

5. Court also takes note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 where in para 38 it is held that:

¶20

"38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused."

¶21

6. In aforesaid circumstances considering that learned Trial Court has not even considered basic ingredients of Section 405 I.P.C., therefore, Court is of considered opinion that impugned order does not survive. However, considering that Court is passing present order even without issuing notice to O.P. No.2, therefore, impugned summoning order dated 14.2.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi in Complaint No.391 of 2020 (Smt. Asghari Begum Vs. Haneefa & Ors) under Sections 323 and 406 of I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Chandausi, DistrictSambhal at Chaudausi are hereby set-aside however, matter is remanded back to learned Trial Court to pass a fresh order taking note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh (supra) . "

¶22

In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 19.10.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.9432 of 2019 (Govind Prasad Singhal Vs. Vishal Rastogi and others), under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station- New Agra, District- Agra pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9th, District- Agra cannot survive and accordingly, it is hereby set aside.

¶23

However, considering that this order is passed without issuing notice to opposite party No.2, therefore, matter is remitted back to learned Trial Court to pass fresh order after hearing the complainant only within three months, after taking note of above referred observations.

¶24

Accordingly, application is disposed of with aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 12.9.2024 P. Pandey

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishal Rastogi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Rastogi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Prashant Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Saxena Alias Rinku vs State of U.P. and Another

Uddeshya @ Prabal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and Another