Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No quashing relief granted. Liberty left to the applicant to file a bail application before the court below, to be decided expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. should be invoked to quash the charge sheet dated 06.03.2023, the summoning order dated 27.03.2023, the B.W. order dated 14.02.2025 and the entire criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 2410/2023 (State Vs Ranjeet and Others) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur. +1 more

Court's answer

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. was dismissed; however, the applicant remains free to file a bail application before the trial court, which is to be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116.

Ratio / Principle

This Court held that offence is made out against the applicant; accordingly the charge sheet, summoning order, B.W. order and the criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 2410/2023 are not quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 27; Rajeev Singh, J.; Order Date 13.8.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:47304. Application U/S 482 No. 6604 of 2025 by Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. to quash the charge sheet dated 06.03.2023, the summoning order dated 27.03.2023, the B.W. order dated 14.02.2025 and the entire Criminal Case No. 2410/2023 (State Vs Ranjeet and Others) arising out of case crime no. 0099 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur — DISMISSED, the Court holding that offence is made out against the applicant. Applicant's counsel submitted that a sale agreement and sale deed were executed in his favour, involving a cash payment of Rs. 20,000/- and Cheque No. 111342 dated 02.01.2023 (Canara Bank, Paliya Branch, Sultanpur) of Rs. 5 lakhs never encashed, and that a suit for cancellation of the sale deed was already filed by the recorded tenure holder. The AGA countered that the purchaser lacked sufficient funds and that the consideration rose from Rs. 1 lakh (agreement) to Rs. 5 lakhs (deed), relying on C.B.I. vs. Aryan Singh (2023) SCC OnLine SC 379 and SLP(C) No. 8626 of 2024 (S.N. Vijayalakshmi vs. State of Karnataka). Bail liberty directed per Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47304

Court No. - 27

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6604 of 2025

Applicant :- Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Heard Sri Sachin Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

Present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

"WHEREFORE, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to invoke its inherent powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. and quash the impugned Charge sheet dated 06.03.2023 U/s- 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District-Sultanpur arising out of case crime no. 0099 of 2023 U/s- 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District- Sultanpur and Impugned Summoning order dated 27.03.2023 U/s-419, 420, 504, 506 IPC, (State Vs Ranjeet and Others) issued by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur as well as B.W. order dated 14.02.2025, (State Vs Ranjeet and Others) issued by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur and entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2410/2023, (State Vs Ranjeet and Others) pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur contained as (Annexure No. 01, 02 & 03) to this petition/application in the interest of justice."

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a sale agreement was executed by the husband of private respondent No. 2 in favor of the applicant, and thereafter, a sale deed was also executed in his favour. The sale consideration included a cash payment of Rs. 20,000/- made by the seller at the time of executing the agreement to sell, and subsequently, Cheque No. 111342 dated 02.01.2023, drawn on Canara Bank, Paliya Branch, Sultanpur, amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs, was issued to the seller. However, the said cheque was never encashed.

Learned counsel further submitted that a suit for cancellation of the sale deed has already been filed by the recorded tenure holder. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated by the recorded tenure holder are bad in the eyes of law, and the charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer in a most mechanical manner.

Learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submitted that during course of investigation, it was found that the purchaser did not have sufficient funds in his bank account. He further pointed out that while the sale agreement mentioned the sale consideration as Rs. 1 lakh, the sale deed reflects an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, which was stated to be paid by cheque. Hence, there is no illegality in the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer.

He also submitted that if any criminal intent is found in the act of the applicant, there is no bar to initiating criminal prosecution. The charge sheet has already been filed under Sections 419, 420, 504, and 506 IPC. Therefore, the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer can be evaluated at this stage, as is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.B.I. vs. Aryan Singh, reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 379. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8626 of 2024 (S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Another).

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record including the contents of the FIR and the judgment(s), referred above, this Court is of the view that offence is made out against the applicant.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the applicant to file a bail application before the court below. In the event such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51, and Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116.

Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Vinay/-

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