Shailendra Singh in Complaint Shailendra Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

The three petitions (Application No. 2638/25, 3727/13 an 4301/13) have got common question of law, hence they are being decided together. For reference, the present application (Application No. 2638/25) is taken as the leading case. The application No. 4522/2013 is being disconnected from this application.

¶22

In Application No. 2638/25, the applicants have mainly prayed as under:

¶23

A482 No. 2638 of 2025

¶24

2

¶25

"... it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and quash the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, court no. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri in criminal revision no. 88 of 2023 CNR UPLPO10047542023 Shailendra Vikram Singh revisionist Vs. State of U.P. & another contained as Annexure no. 1 & impugned order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Complaint Case No. 3593 /2017 U/S 406, 504, 506, 467, 468 I.P.C, Police Station Kotwali Sardar, District- Kheri, Ramesh Vs. Parmita Devi alias Paratima & others contained as Annexure no. 2 & allow the discharge application & petitioner may be discharge from the aforesaid complaint case ."

¶26

In Application No. 3727/13, the applicants have mainly prayed as under:

¶27

"... it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and to set aside the impugned orders dated 27.07.2013 and 08.02.2013 passed by O.P No.2 & 3, whereby the cognizance has been taken by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, against the petitioner under Section 406, 504, 506, 467 and 468 IPC, the true copies of which are contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to the petition and may further be pleased to quash the said complaint made by the Opp-party No.4, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure No. 3 to the petition together with the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7941 of 2012."

¶28

In Application No. 4301/13, the applicants have prayed as under:

¶29

"... it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and to set aside the impugned orders dated 09.09.2013 and 08.02.2013 passed by O.P No.2 & 3, whereby the cognizance has been taken by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court no.2,

¶30

A482 No. 2638 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

against the petitioner under Section 406, 504, 506, 467 and 468 IPC, the true copies of which are contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to the petition and may further be pleased to quash the said complaint made by the Opp-party No.4, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition together with the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7941 of 2012 ."

¶33

It has been submitted by counsel for the applicant that an agreement to sale was executed between Ramesh Agarwal, opp. party No. 2, and Pratima Devi alias Pratima and Shivani Singh. It was agreed upon that Pratima Devi and Shivani will execute sale-deed of 1/2 part of land Gata No. 417, area 0.65 Hectare, out of sale consideration of Rs. 1 lac. The said agreement was executed on 01.08.2011 and Rs. 10,000.00 was advanced. Pratima Devi and Shivani did not execute the sale-deed and the money was also not returned by them. Legal notice was sent to them. All the applicants alongwith Shivani and Pratima Devi came to the office of the complainant and had abused and threatened him. It has been submitted by counsel for the applicants that Shivendra Nath Singh, Hemendra Vikram Singh and Shailendra Singh, who are applicants before this court, have no concern, so far sale agreement is concerned. They are neither witnesses nor they have signed the agreement. The only allegation levelled against the applicants is of intimidation and using abusive language. It has also been submitted by counsel for the applicants that offence under Section 467, 468 and 406, I.P.C. is not made out against the applicants. In support of their contention, the learned counsel for the applicants have also relied on judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. The State of Karnataka & ors., Aironline 2021 SC 936 (para27) , and Radheyshyam & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & anr., 2024 SCC Online SC 2311 , and has submitted that the offence under the aforesaid sections are not made out, because there is no allegation against them in respect of any fraud cheating. It has been further submitted that at the most the opposite party No. 2 could have filed suit for specific performance, which was not done, but instituting criminal proceeding is totally bad. In support of his contention, he has relied judgment of this court in the case of Ravi Babu & ors. v. State of U.P. & ors.,

¶34

A482 No. 2638 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

2024:AHC-LKO:74349-DB . It is further pointed out that in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. only the version of the complaint has been reiterated and no any other role has been assigned to the applicants, except threatening and using abusive language.

¶37

After going through record, statement under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the complaint, this court finds that there is only allegation of threats and using abusive language by the applicants against the opp. party No. 2. The offence under Sections 467, 468 and 406, I.P.C. are not made out, however, the offence under Section 504 and 506 are made out, therefore, the applications are allowed.

¶38

Impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, court no. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri in criminal revision no. 88 of 2023 CNR UPLPO10047542023 Shailendra Vikram Singh revisionist Vs. State of U.P. & another, contained as Annexure no. 1, and impugned order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Complaint Case No. 3593 /2017 U/S 406, 504, 506, 467, 468 I.P.C, Police Station Kotwali Sardar, District- Kheri, Ramesh Vs. Parmita Devi alias Paratima & others , contained as Annexure no. 2 to the application, are hereby set aside .

¶39

Orders dated 27.07.2013 and 08.02.2013 passed by O.P No.2 & 3, in Criminal Case No. 7941 of 2012 whereby the cognizance has been taken by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, against the applicant under Section 406, 504, 506, 467 and 468 IPC, the true copies of which are contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to the application, are hereby quashed .

¶40

Orders dated 09.09.2013 and 08.02.2013 passed by O.P No.2 & 3 in Criminal Case No. 7941 of 2012, whereby the cognizance has been taken by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court no.2, against the applicant under Section 406, 504, 506, 467 and 468 IPC, the true copies of which are contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to the application, are hereby quashed .

¶41

The matters are remitted back to the court below, concerned for taking a fresh decision within 4 weeks in the light of observations made

¶42

A482 No. 2638 of 2025

¶43

5

¶44

hereinabove.

¶45

With the above observations directions, the applications are disposed of . Let a copy of this order be also placed in the files of Application U/S 482 Nos. 3727/2013 and 4301/2013.

¶46

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶47

January 30, 2026

¶48

A.Nigam

¶49

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shailendra Singh in Complaint Shailendra Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Singh in Complaint Shailendra Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Firta Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Ubaidullah and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rinku Das vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Grish Chandra Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kali Prasad and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another