Disposed

Raj Kumar Singh Nain and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024A482/6023/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing after discharge application and revision were rejected in a sale-agreement dispute involving Section 420 IPC allegations. Finding the revisional court's order unreasoned and cursory, the High Court set it aside and remitted the matter for a fresh reasoned decision after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned revisional order set aside; matter remitted for fresh order after hearing parties.

Raj Kumar Singh Nain and Another vs State of U.P. and 3… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114103

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6023 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh Nain And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Applicants before this Court are aggrieved by order dated 03.01.2023 whereby an application to discharge was rejected. The applicants are further aggrieved by another impugned order dated 05.02.2024 whereby a revision thereof was also rejected.

¶7

Sri Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicants submits that various grounds were raised in memo of revision which were referred in impugned order, however, while considering rival submissions, Revisional Court has in a very cursory manner and by an unreasoned order, rejected all grounds.

¶8

Learned counsel further submits that Revisional Court has taken note that offence u/s 420 IPC was made out since when agreement to sale was executed, the property in question was under dispute since a litigation was pending at behest of third party wherein interim order was in operation. However, specific contention of revisionists/applicants herein that no such order were placed on record by complainant was not taken note of. The Revisional Court also did not take note of effect of a civil suit filed by complainant for specific performance against applicants.

¶9

I have carefully perused impugned order as well as memo of revision and observations made in impugned order and I find that there is a merit that specific contentions and arguments as well as grounds mentioned in memo of revision were not considered and in a very cursory manner, Revisional Court has passed impugned order and relevant part thereof is quoted below :-

¶10

“वविदद्वान अविर न्यद्वायद्वालय नने अपनने आदनेश वदनद्ानांकित व 03-01-2023 मम यह वनष्किरर

¶11

वनकिद्वालद्वा हहै वकि पतद् व ालली पर पररविद्वादलीगण किने बयद्वाननों किने आधद्वार पर प्रथम दृष्टयद्वा इस स्तर पर यह परलवक्षित हहै वकि अवभिययक्तगण दद्वारद्वा विद्वादग्रस्त सनांपतत्ति वविवक्रित किकी गई थली तजिस पर न्यद्वायद्वालय पर पहलने सने हली स्टने चल रहद्वा थद्वा। अवभिययक्तगण दद्वारद्वा पररविद्वादलीगण किकी ओर सने अदद्वा किकी गई धनरद् व ाश किको किपट पपूविरकि प्रद्वाप्त किरनने किने उदनेश्य सने उक्त वविक्रिय पत वनष्पद्वादन वकियद्वा जिद्वानद्वा इस स्तर पर उपलब्ध सद्वाक्ष्यनों किने आधद्वार पर हकोनद्वा प्रतलीत हकोतद्वा हहै। इस प्रकिद्वार वविदद्वान अविर न्यद्वायद्वालय नने अपनने आदनेश मम यह उलनेतखित वकियद्वा हहै वकि प्रथम दृष्टयद्वा अपरद्वाध अवभिययक्तगण दद्वारद्वा किद्वाररत वकियने जिद्वानने पररविद्वादलीगण किने बयद्वाननों किने आधद्वार पर परलवक्षित हको रहद्वा हहै। ररविलीजिनकितद्वार किकी ओर सने मद्वाननलीय उच्च न्यद्वायद्वालय उत्तिरद्वाखिण्ड , मद्वाननलीय उच्च न्यद्वायद्वालय इलद्वाहद्वाबद्वाद तथद्वा मद्वाननलीय सविर्वोच्च न्यद्वायद्वालय किकी जिको वनणरयजि ववितधयद्वानां अपनने ररविलीजिन प्रद्वाथरनद्वा पत मम उलनेतखित किकी गई हहै उनमम जिको तथ्य हहै विह तथ्य वविदद्वान अविर न्यद्वायद्वालय दद्वारद्वा पद्वाररत आदनेश सने सनांबनांतधत पतद् व ालली पर प्रस्तयत वकियने गयने तथ्यनों एविनां सद्वाक्ष्यनों सने वभिन्न थने। ररविलीजिनकितद्वार किकी ओर सने प्रस्तयत किकी गई सम्मद् व ानत वनणरयजि ववितधयनों मम यह किहद्वा गयद्वा हहै वकि Money Recovery किने किनेस मम दबद् व बनद्वानने किने तलए यद्वा पपूरली तरह सने तसवविल मद्वामलने मम Criminal case नहहीं हको सकितद्वा हहै। इस प्रकिरण मम ररविलीजिनकितद्वार किकी ओर यह किहद्वा गयद्वा हहै वकि पक्षिकिद्वारनों किने मध्य तसवविल विद्वाद वविचद्वारद्वाधलीन हहै इसकिद्वा तद्वात्पयर यह नहहीं हहै वकि मद्वामलद्वा पपूणरततः तसवविल प्रकिकवत किद्वा हहै। ऐसने मम उक्त वनणरय ववितधयनों किद्वा किकोई भिली लद्वाभि ररविलीजिनकितद्वार किको प्रद्वाप्त हकोनद्वा प्रतलीत नहहीं हकोतद्वा हहै। वविदद्वान अविर न्यद्वायद्वालय किने आदनेश वदनद्ानांकित व 03-01-2023 मम वकिसली प्रकिद्वार किकी किकोई ववितधकि वि तथ्यद्वात्मकि तयवट नहहीं हह। आलकोच आदनेश वदनद्वानांकि 03-012023 पयष्ट वकियने जिद्वानने यकोग्य हहै।”

¶12

In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 05.02.2024 does not survive, hence, it is set aside and since this order is passed without issuing notice to opposite party no.2, therefore, this application is disposed of with an observation that matter is remitted back to concerned Court for passing fresh order after hearing rival parties. The Court will also take note of judgment of Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 N. Sinha

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar Singh Nain and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Singh Nain and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Dr Shobhit Mathur vs State of Up Others

Arvind Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Naeem Hashmi vs State of Up and 4 Others

Ashutosh Patel and Others vs State of Up and Another

Tribhuwan Prasad Dubey and 5 Others vs State of Up and Another

Tasavvar and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another