Disposed

Anupama Singh v. Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2024CAPL/79/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application filed against police for non-compliance with an order directing registration of FIR and sending cheques to FSL for verification. Court found that cheques were not sent to FSL despite specific direction, noting the investigation was mechanical. Contempt application disposed of by directing immediate compliance.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application disposed of with direction to send cheques to FSL and submit supplementary report.

Anupama Singh Vs Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, Addl. Commissioner… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68092

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 79 of 2024 Applicant :- Anupama Singh Opposite Party :- Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, Addl. Commissioner Of Police, Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

The present application has been filed with the prayer to summon and prosecute the respondents for willful and deliberate defiance of the order dated 03.11.2023 passed in A- 482 No.10810 of 2023.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the application U/S 482 No.10810 of 2023 was moved by the applicant which was allowed on 03.11.2023 with the following order:

¶9

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶10

2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶11

"To quash/set aside the impugned order dated 06/04/2023, passed by Learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow in Criminal Misc Case No.550/2023, contained as Annexure No.2 to this application and further be pleased to direct the Learned Court below to reconsider the matter on merits and pass fresh order in accordance with law, within stipulated time frame, in the interest of justice."

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that grand-father of the applicant alongwith the family members were cheated by the private respondent as the private respondent motivated the grand-father of the applicant to sell the property that is bhumi Khasra no. 98, 100, 102, 115, 116, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 138ka and 1185 ka.mi., area 1.280 hectare. In lieu of the sale consideration, amount Rs. 25 lakh and in the sale deed details of three cheques were given as:-

¶13

(i) Cheque no. 130753 dated 14.01.2021, Union Bank Branch- 32 Battalion, P.A.C., Kanpur Road, Lucknow, amounting Rs. Ten lakh,

¶14

(ii) Cheque no. 130752 date 22.01.2021, Union Bank Branch- 32 Battalion, P.A.C., Kanpur Road, Lucknow, amounting Rs. Ten lakh,

¶15

(iii) Cheque no.130754 dated 20.01.2021,Union Bank Branch- 32 Battalion, P.A.C., Kanpur Road, Lucknow, amounting Rs. Five lakh.

¶16

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after execution of sale deed, Cheque nos. 130753 and 130752 were given after filling Rs. One lakh in number and Rs. Ten lakh in words and due to this discrepancy the aforesaid cheques could not be honoured and in the mean-time grand father of the applicant died, due to shock, on 19.03.2021 and thereafter complaint was made then the private respondent gave six cheques of Rs. Thirty-six lakhs by saying that they are giving compensation but all cheques were dis-honoured and thereafter father of the applicant also died and applicant moved application before the police authorities for lodging of the FIR but the same could not be considered. Then the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC was filed which was treated as a complaint case, ignoring the provisions of Section 154 CrPC as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors reported in 2014 2 SCC 1 and he also relied on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of XYZ Appellant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh and ors. reported in 2022 SCC online 102 and submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the Court below to direct the police authorities for lodging of FIR and investigate the same but the learned Court below treated the application as complaint case, therefore kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶17

5. Learned AGA opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted as the application of applicant is treated as a complaint case and the fate of the case would be dependent on the evidence placed before the Court below, therefore, there is no illegality but he does not dispute this fact that on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors reported in 2014 2 SCC 1 as well as the case of XYZ Appellant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh and ors. reported in 2022 SCC online 102.

¶18

6. Considering submissions of rival parties as well as going through the content of petition, as it is evident from the record that there is a specific allegation that in the sale deed two cheques were given amounting Rs. Ten lakhs but in the cheques Rs. One lakh is filled in number and Rs. Ten lakh is filled in words and no sale consideration was paid to the seller and thereafter other cheques were also given but all these cheques were bounced, therefore, it is a case requiring investigation. In such circumstances, this application filed under Section 482 is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is hereby quashed.

¶19

7. A.C.P., Krishna Nagar is directed to ensure the registration of the FIR of the applicant and investigate the same and submit a police report to the court concerned after getting all the necessary verification and examination done from the FSL. "

¶20

It is further submitted that in compliance of the direction of this Court, FIR was lodged but the cheques were never sent to FSL for signature verification and final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner on 24.07.2024 and the same has been submitted before the Competent Court on 09.08.2024.

¶21

On 24.09.2024, following order was passed:

¶22

" 1. Heard.

¶23

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10810 of 2023.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as F.I.R. of the case in question was not being lodged, Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10810 of 2023 was filed, which was disposed of on 03.11.2023 with direction to A.C.P., Krishna Nagar to ensure registration of the F.I.R. of the applicant and investigate the same and submit a police report to the Court concerned after getting all the necessary verification and examination done from the F.S.L.

¶25

It is further submitted that as investigation was not being done, the present contempt petition was filed, in which, notice was issued to the opposite party in the month of January, 2024.

¶26

It is also submitted that without sending any document or cheque to F.S.L. for signature verification, investigation is still going on.

¶27

4. Sri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has placed written instructions dated 27.08.2024, which are taken on record.

¶28

Sri Bajpai submits that final report has already been prepared on 24.07.2024 and the same has been submitted in the Court concerned on 09.08.2024. He further submits that in the written instructions, there is no description that whether any relevant cheque was sent to F.S.L. for verification or not.

¶29

5. List this case on 01.10.2024.

¶30

6. On the next date, Investigating Officer concerned shall appear in person before this Court along with complete case diary. "

¶31

In pursuance of aforesaid order, the Investigating Officer is also present before this Court along with the complete case diary and he has submitted that on the basis of statement of the witnesses of sale deed, final report was submitted and the original cheques were taken back by the purchaser after making payment in cash. He has also submitted that the disputed sets were not provided by the accused persons and photocopy of the same is provided by him, therefore, same could not be sent to FSL for verification.

¶32

Commissioner of Police, Lucknow is directed to ensure the compliance of the direction of this Court and send relevant cheques to FSL by passing an order for further investigation, and thereafter, submit a report.

¶33

It is also expected from the Investigating Officer that the supplementary investigating report be submitted to the Court concerned along with report of FSL in terms of order dated 03.11.2023.

¶34

With the above view, the present contempt application is disposed of.

¶35

Order Date :- 1.10.2024 V. Sinha

¶36

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anupama Singh v. Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupama Singh v. Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Lko.

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

Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Vishwanath vs Shri Abhinav Kannaujiya, Up Zila Adhikari / Sub Divisional Officer, Musafirkhana Distt. Amethi

Dr. Praveen Kumar Rai vs Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti Language University Lko Thru. Its Registrar and 2 Others

Anupama Singh vs Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Lko.

Smt. Phool Mati Devi vs Shri Karan Pal, Upnideshak, Sinchai Evam Jal Sansadhan Vibhag, Banda

Dr. (Smt.) Rajni Kapoor vs Vice Chancellor, the King Georges Medical University Lko. and 4 Others