Ajay Kumar and 12 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 42

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8885 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Rahul Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for appellant is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for informant and learned AGA for the State respondents.

¶6

Present petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the first information report dated 8.4.2025 registered as Case Crime No.206 of 2025, under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS , at Police Station Jagdishpura, District Commissionerate Agra.

¶7

The impugned FIR is challenged on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature. He submits that petitioner has instituted the original suit No.201 of 2025 ( Sri Ajay Kumar and others v. Sri Ram Das and others), wherein learned Civil Judge ( Senior Dvision) Agra vide order dated10.3.2025 has accorded injunction qua the disputed property. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this backdrop states that as the status quo order is already operative qua the property in question, the registration of FIR is to be quashed. It is next contended that initially the informant had moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected. Thereafter, criminal revision was filed. Admittedly the same is pending consideration. Concealing the said pendency of the criminal revision, another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved which was entertained and later on the FIR has been lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2021 ( Randheer Singh vs. the State of UP and ors ) decided on 02.9.2021. In support of his submission, he has also placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd & ors. AIR 2006 SC 2780, wherein it has been held that the tendency to convert a purely civil dispute into criminal cases is to be deprecated. Further also, to buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment and

¶8

order rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.1570 of 2021 . The relevant paragraph No.7 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶9

"Essentially, the present dispute between the parties relates to a breach of contract. A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case, as held by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2023) 5 SCC 360. Similarly, dealing with the distinction between the offence of cheating and a mere breach of contractual obligations, this Court, in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, has held that every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating, and it is required to be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise."

¶10

Reliance has also been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Bharthi Devi & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr., Crimial Appeal No.... of 2024 arising out of Special leave Petition (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018 decided on 3.10.2024 and Radhey Shyam & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.3020 of 2024 @ Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) No.13675 of 2023 decided on 22.7.2024.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the writ petition and states that the suit was instituted deliberately in which the petitioner had not been impleaded by the informant, whereas he is the main contesting party, therefore, the injunction is not binding on the parties. He submits that some time may be accorded to enable him to file detailed objection in this matter.

¶12

Matter requires consideration.

¶13

All the respondents are accorded six weeks time to file counteraffidavit. One week, thereafter, for rejoinder. List immediately thereafter.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as an interim measure, it is provided that until further order, respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR, subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.5.2025/Mukesh

¶16

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Kumar and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uzair Sabir and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar and 12 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar and 12 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sindhu and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others