# Atul Saxena v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 184
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-08
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 40942 of 2017
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atul-saxena-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48986
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 & 506-Quashing of entire criminal
proceedings-Complainant and his wife had
commercial
relationship
with
accused
persons-they entered into an agreement
with expectation of profit of amount
deposited in terms of flats and share, later
there was a breach of conditions, the
Complainant had taken remedy available
9 All. Atul Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
185
under the Arbitration Act, 1996 and an
award had been passed in their favourLater the Complainant lodged FIR against
the accused persons for cheating and
forgery-The allegations of forgery as made
in the complaint were in anticipation, no
evidence was collected-Ingredients of
offences of committing cheating and
forgery are not satisfied-More so, It was a
purely civil dispute which has been given
criminal color and criminal proceedings
are initiated only after the proceedings
initiated by Complainant under the Act,
1996-The
ingredients
of
forgery
and
cheating are absent as the allegations in
complaint was only in anticipation without
any evidence in this regard-Prima facie no
offence is made out-Hence, the entire
proceedings are quashed.(Para 1 to 13)

B. Quashing of criminal proceedings is
called for only when the complaint does
not disclose any offence, or the complaint
is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. The
criminal complaints cannot be quashed
only on the ground that the allegations
made therein appear to be of a civil
nature, if the ingredients of the alleged
offence are prima facie made out in the
complaint.(Para 9)

The applications are allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
burden over our judicial system. Courts are
overburdened by such sort of litigations
especially relating to family matters. Courts
are used as a tool of harassment. Precious
time
of
Courts
consumed
by
such
frivolous/vexatious litigations and due to
paucity of time substantial litigations are
delayed. Frivolous/vexatious incoming of
cases should be checked. Legal awareness
does
not
mean
frivolous/vexatious
litigations.
Litigations
should
be
for
genuine cause/relief. Informant Tej Singh
Verma, who is retired lecturer is well
educated person. He has filed FIR against
the applicants and after lodging the FIR
police machinery came into motion and
investigation has been completed by the
police and final report has been filed.
Thereafter, protest petition has been filed
by the informant and on protest petition,
applicant has been summoned by the
concerned
court.
Thereafter,
case
is
pending since 2015 and accused persons
(applicants) had approached this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
impugned order dated 17.12.2015 in 2016
and thereafter, entire dispute has been
compromised in 2022. The exercise made
by the informant has created burden on the
system.

12. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the proceedings
of Misc. case No. 137 of 2015 (Case
No.3648 of 2015), under Sections 147, 148,
149, 452, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C., Police
Station- Kotwali, District- Etawah, is
hereby quashed on the basis of compromise
and the present application is allowed,
subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- as
exemplary cost upon the applicants and
opposite party no.2 each. The total amount
of cost is Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited in
the account of District Legal Services
Authority, Etawah within a period of three
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order. This amount
shall be utilized for benefit of the litigants
according to the satisfaction of Chairman,
District Legal Services Authority, Etawah.
Trial Court shall ensure the deposition of
the said amount, before consigning the
record. In default of payment of cost
directed as above, order shall be deemed
vacated automatically.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 40942 of 2017
&
Application U/S 482 No. 40821 of 2017

Atul Saxena ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri A.K. Mishra, Sri Pankaj Sharma, Sri Sati
Shanker Tripathi, Sri Sujit Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Brijesh Sahai, Sri Pankaj Govil, Sri
Praveen Kumar Singh, Sri Syed Imran
Ibrahim

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 & 506-Quashing of entire criminal
proceedings-Complainant and his wife had
commercial
relationship
with
accused
persons-they entered into an agreement
with expectation of profit of amount
deposited in terms of flats and share, later
there was a breach of conditions, the
Complainant had taken remedy available
9 All. Atul Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
185
under the Arbitration Act, 1996 and an
award had been passed in their favourLater the Complainant lodged FIR against
the accused persons for cheating and
forgery-The allegations of forgery as made
in the complaint were in anticipation, no
evidence was collected-Ingredients of
offences of committing cheating and
forgery are not satisfied-More so, It was a
purely civil dispute which has been given
criminal color and criminal proceedings
are initiated only after the proceedings
initiated by Complainant under the Act,
1996-The
ingredients
of
forgery
and
cheating are absent as the allegations in
complaint was only in anticipation without
any evidence in this regard-Prima facie no
offence is made out-Hence, the entire
proceedings are quashed.(Para 1 to 13)

B. Quashing of criminal proceedings is
called for only when the complaint does
not disclose any offence, or the complaint
is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. The
criminal complaints cannot be quashed
only on the ground that the allegations
made therein appear to be of a civil
nature, if the ingredients of the alleged
offence are prima facie made out in the
complaint.(Para 9)

The applications are allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St. of Karn. & ors.
(2021) AIR SC 5298: 2021 SCC OnLine SC
976.

2. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. 1 SCC
335

3. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd
Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122

4. Ahmed Ali Quarashi & anr. Vs St. of U.P.
(2020) SCC Online SC 107

5. Joseph Salvaraja A Vs St. of Guj. (2011) 7
SCC 59

6. Sushil Sethi & anr.. Vs St. of Arunachal
Pradesh & ors. (2020) 3 SCC 240
7. Priti Saraf & anr. Vs St. of NCT of Delhi & anr.
(2021) SCC Online SC 206

8. Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs St. of Mah.
(2019) 14 SCC 350

9. St. of Karn. Vs M. Devendrappa (2015) 3 SCC
424

10. Indian Oil Corpn. Vs NEPC India Ltd & ors.
(2006) 6 SCC 736

11. M/s Neeharika Infra. Pvt. Ltd Vs St. of Mah.
& ors. (2020) 10 SCC 118

12. Ramveer Upadhyay & anr.. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.. (2022) SCC Online SC 484

13. Wyeth Ltd. & ors. Vs St. of Bih. & anr.. CRLA
No. 1224 of 2022 (SLP Crl. No. 10730 of 2018)

14. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & ors. Vs St.
of Bih. &anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168

15. Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs St. of Bih. & anr.
(2005) 10 SCC 336

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The facts, in brief, as evident from
material on record as well as from
submissions raised on behalf of rival
parties are that, the Complainant and his
wife have commercial relationship with
accused
persons
so
much
that
the
Complainant was appointed as a Legal
Advisor of the Company, namely, Culture
Home
Developer
Pvt.
Ltd.,
on
remuneration. Further, wife of Complainant
has
entered
a
Memorandum
of
Understanding/
Agreement
(hereinafter
referred to as "MOU/Agreement") for
adjusting the amount paid by Complainant
and his wife towards allotment of flats as
well as share.

2. It appears that relationship between
parties became soar and a dispute arose to
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the extent that payment of remuneration of
Complainant was discontinued as well as
condition
of
MOU/Agreement
were
allegedly not complied with and this led to
appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of
aforesaid agreement wherein an interim
order was also passed and recently the
Arbitrator has pronounced award dated
27.11.2021 in favour of Complainant and
his wife. The said award is challenged by
accused persons under the provisions of
Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1996").

3. During pendency of arbitration
proceedings the Complainant filed a First
Information Report against accused persons
(applicants herein in both applications), for
allegedly
committing
offences
under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC.

4. The contents of First Information
Report are very lengthy, however, crux is
that, very initiation of relationship between
parties was based on dishonesty and
accused persons allegedly, in order to
deceive the Complainant and his wife,
induces them to invest money and it was
part of cheating that Complainant was
appointed as a Legal Advisor to the
Company as well as a MOU/Agreement
was executed to show that all the
transactions were bona fide. In the First
Information Report there are
further
allegations that accused persons have
committed forgery of valuable security,
forgery for the purpose of cheating and
forgery for using a genuine document,
which has reason to believe to be forged.

5. Sri Sujit Kumar, learned counsel
for applicants in both the applications, has
vehemently argued that Complainant and
his wife has already taken appropriate
remedy under Act, 1996 and an award has
been passed in their favour, though
challenged under Section 34 of Act, 1996.
The document of retainership as well as
MOU/Agreement are not in dispute. The
allegations of cheating or forgery are not
based on any evidence. The Complainant
side, with their open eyes, have entered not
only into an agreement but also acted as a
Legal Advisor of Company for which
Complainant was paid also. Only in order
to put pressure on accused/ applicants the
criminal proceedings were initiated and
First Information Report was lodged
wherein after investigation charge sheet has
been filed and cognizance has also been
taken. The investigation was not fair and in
absence of ingredients of aforesaid offences
charge sheet was filed and without applying
judicial mind, the Trial Court has taken
cognizance for all the above referred
alleged offences. It is a purely civil dispute
which has been given criminal colour and
criminal proceedings are initiated only after
the proceedings initiated by Complainant
under Act, 1996, therefore, the criminal
proceedings as well as cognizance order are
liable to be set aside.

6. The above submissions are
vehemently opposed by Sri Paritosh
Malviya, learned A.G.A. and Sri Syed
Imran Ibrahim, Advocate for Opposite
Party No. 2. They submitted that there
might be some overlapping of facts but
only on the ground that Complainant had
availed remedy under Act, 1996 the First
Information Report lodged for committing
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
506 IPC cannot be quashed, as there is no
bar for lodging FIR for cognizable offence.
In the criminal proceedings offences are to
be proved by prosecution and it was a case
of Complainant that since inception, in the
relationship between parties, element to
9 All. Atul Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
187
deceive and to induce the Complainant and
his wife, was present which remained
continued
when
Complainant
was
appointed as Legal Advisor and further
entering into MOU/Agreement with the
wife of Complainant.

7. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

8. Before adverting to the rival
submissions it would be apposite to refer a
recent judgment of Supreme Court passed
in Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of
Karnataka and others, AIR 2021 SC
5298:2021 SCC OnLine SC 976, wherein
somewhat
similar
controversy
was
involved. Considering various judgments
passed by Court it was held that,
"Although, there is perhaps not even an
iota of doubt that a singular factual
premise can give rise to a dispute which is
both, of a civil as well as criminal nature,
each of which could be pursued regardless
of the other." Court further held that only
on the ground that complainant instituted
multiple civil suit, it is not necessary that it
was only to import it a criminal colour and
ultimately the Court has to scrutinize,
whether the relevant ingredients for a
criminal case are even prima facie made
out or not. The Court has also taken note
that the criminal proceedings cannot be
quashed solely because the dispute was
referred to arbitration and arbitration
proceedings had taken place thereafter.

9. Inherent Power of the High
Court under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code 1973 :-

(I) "Inherent Power" of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., an
extraordinary power is with purpose and
object of advancement of justice, which is
to be exercised "to give effect to any order
under the Cr.P.C.", or "to prevent abuse of
process of any Court", or "to secure ends of
justice", making arena of the power very
wide, yet it is to be exercised sparingly,
with great care and with circumspection,
that too in the rarest of rare case.

(II) It is no more res integra that
exercise of inherent power could be
invoked
to
even
quash
a
criminal
proceeding/First
Information
Report/complaint /chargesheet, but only
when allegation made therein does not
constitute
ingredients
of
the
offence/offences and /or are frivolous and
vexatious on their face, without looking
into defence evidence, however such power
should not be exercised to stifle or cause
sudden death of any legitimate prosecution.
Inherent power does not empower the High
Court to assume role of a trial court and to
embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of
evidence and sustainability of accusation,
specifically in a case where the entire facts
are
incomplete
and
hazy.
Similarly
quashing of criminal proceedings by
assessing the statements under section 161
Cr.P.C. at initial stage is nothing but
scuttling a full fledged trial.

(III) There can not be any straight
jacket formula for regulating the inherent
power of this Court, however the Supreme
Court has summarised and illustrated some
categories in which this power could be
exercised in catena of judgments. Some of
them are State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal
: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd Vs Mohd
Sharaful Haque: (2005) 1 SCC 122,
Ahmed Ali Quarashi and Anr Versus The
State of Uttar Pradesh : 2020 SCC
Online SC 107, Joseph Salvaraja A v.
State of Gujarat (2011) 7 SCC 59, Sushil
Sethi and another Vs The State of
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Arunachal Pradesh and others (2020) 3
SCC, 240, Priti Saraf and Anr Vs State
of NCT of Delhi and Anr : 2021 SCC
Online
SC
206.
Some
categories/
circumstances as illustrations but not
exhaustive are : allegations made in FIR /
complaint, if are taken at their face value
and accepted do not prima facie constitute
any offence or are so absurd and inherently
improbable to make out any case or no
cognizable offence is disclosed against the
accused,
criminal
proceedings
is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive and with a view to spite the accused
due to private and personal grudge, or
where there is a specific legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or in
the concerned Act to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings or when
dispute between the parties constitute only
a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong,
further Courts would not permit a person to
be harassed although no case for taking
cognizance of the offence has been made
out.

(IV) In Sau. Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra
: (2019) 14 SCC 350, the Apex Court has
laid emphasis on the principles laid down
in two of its previous judgements namely,
State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa :
2015 (3) SCC 424 and Indian Oil
Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.:
(2006)6 SCC 736 and held that quashing of
criminal proceedings is called for only
when the complaint does not disclose any
offence, or the complaint is frivolous,
vexatious,
or
oppressive
and
further
clarified that defences available during a
trial and facts/aspects whose establishment
during the trial may lead to acquittal cannot
form the basis of quashing a criminal
complaint. The criminal complaints cannot
be quashed only on the ground that the
allegations made therein appear to be of a
civil nature, if the ingredients of the alleged
offence are prima facie made out in the
complaint.

(V) The Supreme Court in M/s
Neeharika
Infrastructure
Pvt.
Ltd
Versus State of Maharashtra and Others
: (2020) 10 SCC 118, has categorically
held that High Court is not justified in
passing the order of not to arrest and or no
coercive
steps
either
during
the
investigation or till the final report/ charge
sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
while dismissing/disposing petition under
Section 482Cr.P.C. and/or under Article
226 of the Constitution and even in
exceptional cases where High Court is of
the opinion that a prima facie case is made
out for stay of further investigation,such
order has to be with brief reasons, though
such orders should not be passed routinely,
casually and/or mechanically.

(VI) Whether the allegations are
true or untrue, would have to be decided in
the trial. In exercise of power under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not
examine the correctness of the allegations
in a complaint except in exceptionally rare
cases where it is patently clear that the
allegations are frivolous or do not disclose
any offence. (see Ramveer Upadhyay &
Anr. versus State of U.P. & Anr. 2022
SCC Online SC 484)

(VII) "A careful reading of the
complaint, the gist of which we have
extracted above would show that none of
the ingredients of any of the offences
complained against the appellants are made
out. Even if all the averments contained in
the complaint are taken to be true, they do
not make out any of the offences alleged
against the appellants. Therefore, we do not
know how an FIR was registered and a
charge-sheet was also filed.....It is too late
in the day to seek support from any
precedents, for the proposition that if no
9 All. Atul Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
189
offence is made out by a careful reading of
the complaint, the complaint deserves to be
quashed." (See, Wyeth Limited & others
vs, State of Bihar & another, Criminal
Appeal No.1224 of 2022 (Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.10730 OF 2018),
decided on 11th August, 2022).

10. Now the Court proceed to
scrutinize, whether the relevant ingredients
for a criminal case are prima facie made
out or not. Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and
506 IPC are mentioned hereinafter:

"420. Cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property.--Whoever
cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

"467.
Forgery
of
valuable
security, will, etc.--Whoever forges a
document which purports to be a valuable
security or a will, or an authority to adopt
a son, or which purports to give authority
to any person to make or transfer any
valuable security, or to receive the
principal, interest or dividends thereon, or
to receive or deliver any money, movable
property, or valuable security, or any
document purporting to be an acquittance
or receipt acknowledging the payment of
money, or an acquittance or receipt for the
delivery of any movable property or
valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine."

"468. Forgery for purpose of
cheating.--Whoever
commits
forgery,
intending that the document or electronic
record forged shall be used for the purpose
of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

"471. Using as genuine a forged
document or electronic record.--Whoever
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine
any document or electronic record which
he knows or has reason to believe to be a
forged document or electronic record, shall
be punished in the same manner as if he
had forged such document or electronic
record."

"506. Punishment for criminal
intimidation.--Whoever
commits,
the
offence of criminal intimidation shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both; If
threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of
any property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for
life, or with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years, or to impute,
unchastity to a woman, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to seven years, or
with fine, or with both."

11. In order to find out, whether there
are prima facie case made out for
committing
offence
of
cheating
and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property
as well as forgery of valuable security for
the purpose of cheating and using as
genuine any document believed to be
forged with dishonest intention, the element
of dishonesty and intent to commit fraud by
cheating or forgery is necessary. However,
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the facts are different so much as the
Complainant has not only paid amount for
the purpose of flats but became Legal
Advisor of the Company of accused also on
retainer basis and for that he was paid on
month-to-month basis. Further, his wife has
entered into the MOU/Agreement with
accused person duly signed by both parties.
Therefore, the parties have entered into a
business transaction after understanding the
terms of MOU/Agreement with expectation
of profit of amount deposited in terms of
flats and share and since the conditions
were not followed and there was a breach
of conditions, the Complainant has taken
remedy available under Act, 1996 and
recently an award has been passed in their
favour,
therefore,
the
element
of
inducement on the basis of fraudulent and
dishonest act by accused persons is missing
as well as the allegation of forgery is also
not prima facie made out as there is no
allegation that MOU/Agreement made was
a forged document. The allegations of
forgery as made in the complaint were in
anticipation as well as no evidence was
collected, whether any forged documents
were prepared. For reference the relevant
part of complaint is reproduced hereinafter:

"Inke
Dwara
Comapny
Me
Jhuthe Dastavej/ Khata/ Vivran Patra
Vouchers Aadi Nuksan Pahunchane Ki
Niyat Se Taiyar Kiye Gaye Hai Aut Taiyar
Kiye Ja Rahe Hai Jisse Hamare Alawa
Anya Niveshakon Ko Bhi Dhanrashi Ka
Nuksan Ho."

12. Therefore, there was no material
on record that any offence of forgery was
prima faice committed.

13. Considering the above analysis,
this Court come to definite conclusion
that
ingredients
of
offences
of
committing cheating and forgery are not
satisfied since there is no element of
dishonesty from inception specifically
when
parties
have
entered
into
MOU/Agreement
duly
signed
and
without any allegation of forgery in the
said document. The essential ingredients
of forgery, i.e., to make any false
document with intent to commit fraud is
also absent as the allegation in complaint
was only in anticipation without any
evidence in this regard. Accordingly, this
Court finds it to be a fit case where the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
can be exercised that no offence is made
out on the basis of complaint and material
on record and thus the facts of present
case
falls
under
the
category
of
exceptionally rare case where it is
patently clear that allegations do not
disclose any offence. It would be
beneficial to extract relevant part of para
15 of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma
and others vs. State of Bihar and
another, (2000) 4 SCC 168 and para 6
and 7 of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs.
State of Bihar and another, (2005) 10
SCC 336:

Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma
(supra)

"15.
....that
the
distinction
between mere breach of contract and the
offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends
upon the intention of the accused at the
time to inducement which may be judged by
his subsequent conduct but for this
subsequent conduct is not the sole test.
Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to
criminal prosecution for cheating unless
fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown
right at the beginning of the transaction,
that is the time when the offence is said to
have been committed. Therefore it is the
intention which is the gist of the offence. To
9 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Annu Verma & Anr.
191
hold a person guilty of cheating it is
necessary to show that he had fraudulent or
dishonest intention at the time of making
the promise..."

Uma Shankar Gopalika (supra)

"6. Now the question to be
examined by us is as to whether on the
facts
disclosed
in
the
petition
of
complaint
any
criminal
offence
whatsoever is made out much less
offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC.
The only allegation in the complaint
petition against the accused persons is
that they assured the complainant that
when they receive the insurance claim
amounting to Rs 4,20,000, they would pay
a sum of Rs 2,60,000 to the complainant
out of that but the same has never been
paid. Apart from that there is no other
allegation in the petition of complaint. It
was pointed out on behalf of the
complainant
that
the
accused
fraudulently persuaded the complainant
to agree so that the accused persons may
take steps for moving the Consumer
Forum in relation to the claim of Rs
4,20,000. It is well settled that every
breach of contract would not give rise to
an offence of cheating and only in those
cases breach of contract would amount to
cheating where there was any deception
played at the very inception. If the
intention to cheat has developed later on,
the same cannot amount to cheating, hi
the present case it has nowhere been
stated that at the very inception there was
any intention on behalf of the accused
persons to cheat which is a condition
precedent for an offence under Section
420 IPC.

7. In our view petition of
complaint does not disclose any criminal
offence at all much less any offence either
under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC
and the present case is a case of purely
civil dispute between the parties for
which remedy lies before a civil court by
filing a properly constituted suit. In our
opinion, in view of these facts allowing
the police investigation to continue would
amount to an abuse of the process of
court and to prevent the same it was just
and expedient for the High Court to
quash the same by exercising the powers
under Section 482 CrPC which it has
erroneously refused."

14. In the result, both the applications
are allowed. Entire criminal proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 2317 of 2017 (State vs.
Atul Saxena and others), arising out of
Case Crime No. 0726 of 2016, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC,
Police Station Vrindaban, District Mathura
as well as the charge sheet dated
19.01.2017 and cognizance order dated
20.04.2017, are hereby quashed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 191
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal No. 277 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Annu Verma & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ramanand Pandey (Addl. C.S.C.), Sri
Ashish Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Tripathi