Single bench order staying proceedings in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash criminal charges for cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a commercial dispute, directing notices and affidavits from respondents.
Stayed proceedings against the applicant issued notices to respondents and fixed affidavit deadlines.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28233 of 2024
Applicant :- Pankaj Lunia Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Yadav,Saurabh Yadav,Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4146 of 2023 (State Vs. Pankaj Lunia) arising out of Case Crime No. 339 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Link Road, District Ghaziabad, as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 17.03.2023 pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3, Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report dated 11.09.2022 has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations with ulterior motive and only to harass the present applicant. It is further submitted that as per allegations of the F.I.R., in the year of 2010 applicant and first informant agreed to start the business of real estate for which the first informant invested a certain amount of money, but after some time a dispute arose regarding the plotting of the land. The applicant returned the amount of the first informant by way of different cheques on different dates in the year of 2018 but after a compromise made on 30.08.2017, the applicant did not return the amount.
It is further submitted that this is a purely commercial dispute and the first informant converted a civil dispute into a criminal case. It is further submitted that the cognizance order has been passed without considering the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 506 of I.P.C. for the same set of the act respectively. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a judgment of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248.
Prima facie, matter requires consideration.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by
learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.
Learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter.
List after eight weeks.
Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of the aforesaid case, shall remain stayed against the applicant.
Order Date :- 8.11.2024 Ishan
Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 406, and 506 IPC in a commercial dispute requires a final order or can be contingent on further evidence.
Whether the cognizance order passed by the lower court considered all essential ingredients of the offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.Referred¶9
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pankaj Lunia
State of U.P.
Another
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
