Smt. Rajlakshmi Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024A482/1625/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC arising from an F.I.R. alleging breach of agreement for sale of trees and land. The Court noted the dispute appeared civil in nature and the applicant was not a party to the alleged agreement. The Court issued notice to the opposite party and stayed the further criminal proceedings pending consideration of the application.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on further proceedings pending consideration of the quashing application.

Smt. Rajlakshmi Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1625 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Rajlakshmi Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Misra,Paresh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Paresh Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶7

By means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 27.04.2023 and the order dated 20.11.2023 and the entire proceedings of Case No.56258 of 2023, under Section 406 & 420 I.P.C. Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

¶8

The opposite party no.2 lodged an F.IR. No.194 of 2021, dated 27.05.2021, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C. in Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow against four persons- the applicant, her husband-Dr. Ajay Pratap Singh (since deceased) Priya Darshini Singh & Rajlaxmi Singh (daughters of the applicants), alleging that the complainant is proprietor of M/s Shiza Trading Company, which deals in timber business. The applicant's husband had told the complainant that he has a farm of about fifty acres, wherein forty thousand eucalyptus trees were there. He had entered into a deal for the trees for rupees one crore five lacks and an agreement was entered into between the parties for sale of ten bigha agricultural land for rupees forty

¶9

five lacs. The complainant had paid a sum of rupees one crore five lacs by crediting the same into the account of the applicant's deceased father, rupees fifteen lacs were credited to the bank account of the applicant's mother and rupees twenty lacs were credited in the account of applicant no.2 Priya Darshini Singh and rupees ten lacks were deposited in the bank account of applicant no.1 Rajlaxmi Singh. However, the complainant got only eight thousand trees as against forty thousand trees promised by the applicant's deceased husband and accused persons declined to execute the sale deed in respect of ten bigha land.

¶10

After investigation the Investigating Officer has forwarded a final report which was not approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and thereafter further investigation was carried out and again final report was submitted which was placed before the Court. The complainant filed a protest petition against the final report which has been accepted by the court by means of an order dated 27.07.2023. However, even after accepting the final report the learned trial court passed an order that the protest petition be registered as a complaint. Thereafter, the statements of complainant and the witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and the applicant and her daughters co-accused Priya Darshini Singh & Rajlaxmi Singh have been summoned to face trial for the offence under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. by means of an order dated 20.11.2023, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the grievance of the complainant appears to be regarding fulfillment of contents of an agreement executed between the complainant and the deceased's husband of the applicant, to which the applicant was not a party. The agreement is vague as

¶12

it does not mention the numbers of trees or the consideration payable in respect thereof. There is no agreement regarding sale of ten bigha agricultural land as has been alleged in the F.I.R.

¶13

The dispute between the parties appears to be purely civil in nature and even as per the averments made by the complainant no act of commission has been imputed against the applicant or against her daughters.

¶14

The matter requires detailed consideration.

¶15

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date. Steps for service of notice shall be taken by the applicant within one week from today.

¶16

The opposite parties may file counter affidavit within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed by the applicant within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶17

Connect with Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.1107 of 2024 and list in the week commencing 18.03.2024.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts, as an interim measure, it is provided that the further proceedings of impugned orders dated 27.04.2023 and 20.11.2023 along with the entire proceedings of Case No.56258 of 2023, under Section 406 & 420 I.P.C. Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 21.2.2024 Ram.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rajlakshmi Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajlakshmi Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Praveen Kumar Arya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Govt. of U,P. Distt. Lko. and Others

Nihal Kharwar @ Nihal Kumar @ Nihal Kumhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Raj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Chandra Mauli Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Fakhruddin Alias Wahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Others