Disposed

Brajendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024A482/9363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant seeks quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of cognizance taken on complaint alleging siphoning of Society funds, arguing he had no specific role as Treasurer and the matter is civil in nature, citing Supreme Court precedents. Court stayed coercive measures pending consideration.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay: cognizance order dated 23.05.2017 and subsequent orders dated 13.12.2023, 20.08.2024 and 30.09.2024 adopting coercive measures shall remain stayed till next date of listing.

Brajendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9363 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Brajendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Pooja Singh,Ishan Baghel,Sakshi Singh,Sameer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Mishra,Prateek Tewari,Veer Bahadur Lal Srivasta,B/A3242,B/V1055

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Sri Prateek Tewari, Sri Alok Kumar Mishra and Sri Veer Bahadur Lal Srivastava filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri I.B.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. Pooja Singh and Sri Sameer Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Sri Prateek Tewari,Sri Alok Kumar Mishra and Sri Veer Bahadur Lal Srivastava , who have put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶8

Sri I.B.Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that complainant/opposite party no.2 is not aggrieved in any manner to file complaint against the applicant and it is proxy complaint filed by him, which is evident after perusal of para-10 of the complaint wherein it has been stated that Km. Priti Kaur, aged about 76 years is suffering from abdominal Cancer and is under treatment of doctors. It is further stated that Km. Priti Kaur was the member in the Society but she has not filed any complaint and it is a proxy complaint made on her behalf. It is submitted that criminal case has got its serious consequences and if the complainant is not

¶9

aggrieved then how he can be allowed to drag the applicant by lunching criminal case against him. The allegations are serious in nature wherein it is mentioned that certain plots were purchased in the name of accused Pooran Singh, who was Manager of Pioneer Montessori School, Lucknow and the allegation is levelled to the extent that for personal gain money has been siphoned.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards various sale-deeds, wherein it is mentioned that plots were sold in favour of accused Pooran Singh son of Late Lal Singh, resident of 227, Rajendra Nagar, Lucknow, Manager of Pioneer Montessori School, Lucknow ( a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860). It has been submitted that after looking into the version of sale-deeds, contained in Annexure no.6 alongwith criminal complaint, it is evident that Co-accused Pooran Singh is the Manager and the said fact is endorsed in the registered deeds.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that Regular Suit No. 518 of 2011 was filed for declaration by the Society, Pioneer Montessori School, Lucknow, in which accused Pooran Singh is made defendant and he filed written statement making averments that land purchased by him is pertaining to Society and he has no personal gain and being Manager, he is managing the affairs of the Society. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Km. Priti Kaur had given an application to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow as member of the Society and certain irregularities were pointed out

¶12

by her. She has also stated in the application that certain properties were purchased by accused Pooran Singh in his name for his personal gain . Findings have been recorded by the Deputy Registrar in his order dated 23.02.2012, wherein he has mentioned that lands have been purchased in the name of Society and the Society is in possession of the land in question and if the name of Manager,accused Pooran Singh is mentioned then it does not mean that he is the owner of the land in question. The Manager had admitted that the properties were purchased with proceeds of the Society and he has not gained any personal benefits and the sale-deeds indicate that as purchaser, his name is mentioned as Manager under the Society, in which it is clear that the property is purchased in the name of the Society and accused Pooran Singh and the applicant have been unnecessarily dragged in criminal proceedings.

¶13

Sri I.B. Singh has submitted that co-accused Pooran Singh died prior to issuance of impugned summons. There is no specific allegation against the applicant as to how he was involved in commission of crime and no cogent evidence is filed to that extent except the bald allegations.

¶14

It is further submitted that the revisional court has also not looked into the legal proposition that there is no specific role assigned to the applicant in the entire complaint and the summons have been issued. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is going to face criminal case without cogent material as such the court below was not justified in issuing summons against the applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant was the Treasurer and was not empowered in the transaction of sale and purchase nor he was the member of the Society and he was only maintaining the accounts of the Society and he is not beneficiary in any manner. It has further submitted that cognizance order dated 23.05.2017 has been passed against a dead person co-accused Pooran Singh who died on 31.08.2015. He also submits that there is allegation of forging certain bank drafts which is in the name of accused Pooran Singh instead in the name of the Society , thus , the allegation is levelled against late Pooran Singh.

¶16

Sri I.B.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant also submits that after looking into the facts and circumstances of the complaint, it is borne out that matter appears to be in civil nature and filing criminal complaint is unwarranted. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mithilesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) SCC Online SC 976, Randheer Singh Versus State of U.P. and others (2021) SCC Online SC 942, G. Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others (2000) 2 SCC 636,Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others (2006) 6 SCC 736and Vijay Kumar Ghai and others Versus State of West Bengal and others (2022) 7 SCC 124 .

¶17

On the other hand, Sri Prateek Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that criminal complaint discloses offence against the applicant and after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202

¶18

Cr.P.C., summons have been issued and there is no illegality in the summons issued by the court below as well as in the revisional order. He has submitted that applicant being the Treasurer played active role in purchase of certain plots and he colluded with the Manager in purchase of land pertaining to illegal transactions.

¶19

The matter requires consideration.

¶20

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks time thereafter is granted to learned counsel for the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶21

List in the week commencing 06.01.2025.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, operation and implementation of cognizance order dated 23.05.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 134 of 2017, Police Station-Naka, District Lucknow (Harmit Singh Versus Puran Singh and others), under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B 1.P.C. pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Lucknow and the subsequent orders dated 13.12.2023, 20.08.2024 & 30.09.2024 by means of which coercive measures have been adopted by the learned trial court shall remain stayed.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 dk/

¶24

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

Brajendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs 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

Ramdin and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shri Nikant Jain and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shri Nikant Jain and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Priyanka Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Kunti Prajapati and Ors. Vs Smt. Nootan Prajapati @ Roshni @ Taaniya and Anr.