Devendra Singh Gaur vs State of U.P. and Another

Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet dated 2.12.2024 as well as summoning order dated 15.5.2025 and entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 1309 of 2025 (State vs. Devendra Singh Gaur) arising out of Case Crime no. 0256 of 2024 under sections 504, 506, 420 IPC, PS- Mahrauni, District Lalitpur.

¶10

As per the office report, in compliance to order dated 27.10.2025, notices have already been served upon opposite party no. 2 on dated 2.11.2025 which has been duly endorsed by opposite party no. 2 over the report submitted by concerned Station House Officer on the same date and report along with other document have been informed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur through office of this Court which is part of the record but till today none appeared either in person or through counsel at the behest of opposite party no. 2.

¶11

It is the case of the applicant that he purchased a machine having registered no. MP36H1269, Engine no. 4H32012020235 and chassis no. BM1022011393. There was some agreement entered by both the parties, i.e. applicant and opposite party no. 2 for further transaction of the same machine upon consideration of Rs.22,50,000/- and certain transaction have already been made between the parties but due to hypothecation to the financial institution name of the opposite party no. 2 has never been

¶12

NA528 No. 31422 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

registered against the said machine since the same was motorable and registered at Regional Transport Office of the concerned District which pertains to State of Madhya Pradesh.

¶15

The facts which has been mentioned by learned counsel for the applicant reveals that possession of the machine was having with opposite party no. 2 but due to default in the monthly installment which was due to be paid before financial institution, the same was again possessed by the financial institution itself which culminated into preferring FIR by opposite party no. 2 against applicant. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of institution of the FIR, same has been challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 16495 of 2024, wherein, till cognizance is taken by learned concerned court on police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the respondents were directed not to arrest the applicant in pursuance to the First Information Report vide order dated 17.9.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that once the FIR has been registered whereupon detailed investigation has been carried out by concerned Investigating Officer and cognizance has been taken up, there is hardly any occasion arises in favour of the applicant to pursue the instant application but to appear before learned court concerned for facing trial.

¶17

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that once the notices have been served upon opposite party no. 2/informant at whose behest the FIR has already been registered, it is the duty of the informant to pursue his claim, interest on the matter which has been ensued in shape of FIR before any court of law, but it is apparent from the records that in spite of service of notice which has been duly received by opposite party no. 2 none appeared either in person or through counsel to rebut the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant and as such no option left but to decide the instant matter only at the behest of matter set forth by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

NA528 No. 31422 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

After having the narration available in the FIR, it is crystal clear that this is the personal dispute between the parties arising out of certain commercial transaction that too in shape of purchase of motor machine which was in the knowledge of opposite party no. 2 that the same was hypothecated with the financial institution, in spite of the same, if any amount whatsoever has been rendered in favour of the applicant that was on the risk of opposite party no. 2 since there was hardly any legal sanctity for entering into transaction for a purchase of an item which is already having a first charge in favour of the financial institution. The grievances, if any persist with opposite party no. 2, the same cannot be redressed by way of instituting a criminal proceeding against the applicant but it is pure and perfect civil dispute arising out of certain commercial transaction. As per dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments such as in case of Anukul Singh vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 948 and Sachin Garg vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 82 , it has been already been settled that no criminal proceedings can be instituted only for settling scores which are strictly attracting commercial or civil dispute .

¶21

In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant raised the justified grounds for interference of this Court and on the analogy drawn by Hon'ble Apex Court, charge sheet dated 2.12.2024 and cognizance order dated 15.5.2025 along with entire proceeding of Case no. 1309 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 0256 of 2024 under sections 504, 506, 420 IPC, PS- Mahrauni, District Lalitpur are hereby set aside.

¶22

The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed accordingly.

¶23

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶24

November 10, 2025 Shaswat

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Singh Gaur v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh Gaur v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sohan Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Patel vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Singh Gautam vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarjeet and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Sahu vs State of U.P.