Siyaram Chaudhary Alias Anjana Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024A482/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interquel application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The High Court issued notice to the State, directed filing of counter-affidavits, and stayed the impugned proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2018 until further orders.

Siyaram Chaudhary Alias Anjana Verma vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 57 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Siyaram Chaudhary Alias Anjana Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nusharat Jahan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2.

¶8

Steps be taken within a week.

¶9

Office to proceed accordingly.

¶10

By means of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following relief:

¶11

"1. Quash the impugned criminal proceedings of Complaint No. 1451/2018 styled as Shri Devi Vs. Siyaram Chaudhary @ Anjana Verma U/s 417, 406 IPC, P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow pending in Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Court No. 27, Lucknow in the interest of justice.

¶12

2. Quash impugned order dated 20.03.2023 passed by Ld. Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Court no. 27, Lucknow, in the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner, whereby the Ld. Trial court summon the petitioner; in the interest of justice.

¶13

3. Quash impugned order dated 22.05.2018 passed by Ld. Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Court no. 27, Lucknow, in the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner, whereby the Ld. Trial court took cognizance of the offence; in the interest of justice.

¶14

4. Quash impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by Ld. Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Court No. 27, Lucknow, in the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner, whereby the Ld. Trial court issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner; in the interest of justice."

¶15

Attention has been drawn of this Court towards Annexure no. 4 which is a complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 13.04.2018 by opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner for the alleged incident in question of the year, 2010. In the aforesaid complaint, it has been categorically indicated that the alleged transaction had taken place between the husband of opposite

¶16

party no. 2 and the petitioner in the year, 2010 but after death of her husband on 18.08.2016 when she came to know that the amount in question, which was given by her husband to the petitioner, has not been returned, she has filed the aforesaid complaint.

¶17

In the aforesaid complaint, no proper explanation has been given as to why the complaint has not been filed by her husband and also as to why she has not lodged any complaint immediately after death of her husband on 18.08.2016. On the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner has been summoned by the learned court below under Sections 417 and 406 IPC on 20th of March, 2023.

¶18

Therefore from perusal of the above complaint, it is clear that the alleged incident in question is of the year, 2010, the complaint has been filed on 13.04.2018 by opposite party no. 2 after death of her husband on 18.08.2016, cognizance has been taken on 22.05.2018 and summons have been issued on 20.03.2023.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Section 468 Cr.P.C. which provides bar for taking cognizance after the laps of period of limitation. For the convenience, Section 468 Cr.P.C. reads as under :

¶20

"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.

¶21

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

¶22

(2) The period of limitation shall be-

¶23

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

¶24

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

¶25

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

¶26

[(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.]"

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. to submit that the punishment in the present case is only 3 years.

¶28

He has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of

¶29

Apex Court in re: Chanchalpati Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Another reported in [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446] referring Para 11, 15 and 16 to submit that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the entire proceedings may be quashed on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.

¶30

The matter requires considerations.

¶31

Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

¶32

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may also be filed within a period of three weeks thereafter.

¶33

List this petition in the week commencing 11th of March, 2024.

¶34

Until further order of the Court, the further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2018 (supra) shall remain stayed.

¶35

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶36

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 kkv/

¶37

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Siyaram Chaudhary Alias Anjana Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyaram Chaudhary Alias Anjana Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmendra Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Syed Masood Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Vimal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Moni Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Rahul Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.