Avadhesh Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Avadhesh Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief only: notice issued to respondent no. 2; case listed for the 2nd week of April, 2025; the impugned proceedings (charge sheet dated 19.06.2024 and summoning order dated 22.10.2024) shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. The application remains pending and is not finally allowed or dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 19.06.2024 and the summoning order dated 22.10.2024 passed in F.I.R. No. 1315 of 2023 (Sections 420, 506, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Barabanki) ought to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

On going through the application, the F.I.R. and other relevant documents including the statements of the independent witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the Court found that the independent witnesses categorically stated that the complainant was willing to purchase the land of the applicants and the applicants sold out their plot to the complainant (prima facie assessment supporting further consideration).

Ratio / Principle

The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of vague allegations.

Key takeaways

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Court held that prima facie the matter requires consideration.ratio¶¶10
Operative directions: notice to respondent no. 2, case listed in the 2nd week of April, 2025, and till the next date of listing the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Rajeev Singh, J. — Application U/S 482 No. - 1568 of 2025, Avadhesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Anr., order dated 24.2.2025. Applicants sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 19.06.2024 and summoning order dated 22.10.2024 in F.I.R. No. 1315 of 2023, under Sections 420, 506, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Barabanki. Applicants pleaded they were recorded tenure holders of Plot No. 126M, sold their share to the complainant with possession delivered, and that the F.I.R. alleged consideration for two plots while the sale deed of another unidentified plot was said to be unexecuted; counsel also urged that proceedings under Section 420 and Section 406 I.P.C. cannot run together. The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer, stating a charge sheet followed detailed investigation, but did not dispute the statements of six independent witnesses (Awadhesh Kumar, Amit Kumar, Jagdamba Prasad, Vishnu Kumar, Diliep Kumar, Ram Lakhan) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which supported the sale to the complainant. Holding that, prima facie, the F.I.R. rested on vague allegations and the matter required consideration, the Court issued notice to respondent no. 2, listed the case in the 2nd week of April, 2025, and directed that the impugned proceedings remain stayed till the next date.

Court No. - 13

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1568 of 2025

Applicant :- Avadhesh Kumar Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bal Krishna Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 19.06.2024 as well as summoning order dated 22.10.2024 passed in F.I.R. No. 1315 of 2023, under Sections 420, 506, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Barabanki.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant were the recorded tenure holder of Plot No. 126M and they sold out their share to the complainant of the present case. The possession of the said plot was also given to the complainant, but on the basis of incorrect facts, F.I.R. was lodged with the allegation that though sale consideration of two plots were taken by the applicants, but the sale deed of another plot was not executed by the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that during the course of investigation, statements of independent witnesses have been recorded, in which, they categorically stated that applicants were having one plot and they sold out the said area/plot to the complainant of the present case. It is next submitted that details of the alleged second plot is also not given by the complainant to the Investigating Officer. It is vehemently submitted that the proceedings under Section 420 and Section 406 I.P.C. cannot run together. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that after detail investigation, charge sheet was filed. However, he does not dispute the statements of independent witnesses, namely, Awadhesh Kumar, Amit Kumar, Jagdamba Prasad, Vishnu Kumar, Diliep Kumar and Ram Lakhan, which were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents including the statements of the independent witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the aforesaid independent witnesses categorically stated that complainant of the present case was willing to purchase the land of the applicants and the applicants sold out their plot to the complainant. However, on the basis of vague allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged.

In view of above facts and circumstances, prima facie, the matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

List this case in the 2nd week of April, 2025.

Till the next date of listing, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 VKS

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