# Bajrangi Lal Gupta v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 909
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-15
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 14204 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bajrangi-lal-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46136
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure - Sections 156(3), 200, 202,
203, 482 - Nature of dispute - Criminal
Courts should ensure that the proceedings
before it are not used for settling scores or
to pressurize parties to settle the civil
dispute. (Para 13)

The dispute of Civil Nature may also contain the
ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will
have to be tried as criminal offences even if
they also amount to civil dispute. But in the
present case ingredients to constitute offences
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mentioned in the complaint could not be shown
to exist on the material on record. (Para 15, 16)

Court also observed that the person with the
primary grievance did not file any complaint nor
appeared as witness. Therefore, did not find any
illegality in the order of Magistrate in dismissing
the complaint filed by the present applicant. Any
case, for interference in the exercise of
jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of
"preventing abuse of the process of Court" or
"to secure the ends of justice" is not made out.
(Para 19, 21)

Application Rejected. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1 All. Bajrangi Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
909

8. The said argument is patently
fallacious inasmuch as once the question
had been framed by the Full Bench of this
Court which was only for the purpose "as
to whether a review would lie before the
authority concerned" consequently the
observations made in paragraph 39 of the
judgment have to be read with the question
which was framed by the Full Bench and
not otherwise.
Thus,
even
the
said
argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is rejected.

9. A similar controversy came up
before the Apex Court in the case of
Grindlays Bank Limited vs. Central
Government Industrial Tribunal reported
in 1980 (Supp.) SCC 420, wherein the
Apex Court was seized of the question as to
whether Industrial Tribunal could set-aside
its ex-parte award if it was satisfied that the
aggrieved party was prevented from
appearing by sufficient cause. The Apex
Court held that a Tribunal or body should
be considered to be endowed with such
ancillary or incidental powers as are
necessary
to
discharge
its
functions
effectively for the purpose of doing justice
between the parties. It was further held that
although there is no express provision in
the Act or Rules framed there under giving
the Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction to setaside its ex-parte award, Tribunal should be
considered as invested with such incidental
or ancillary powers unless there is any
indication in the statute to the contrary.

10. It is not the case of the petitioner
that the Consolidation of Holdings Act
precludes setting-aside an ex-parte order.
Thus, taking into consideration the law laid
down in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd.
(supra) the Court finds that no error has
been committed by the authority concerned
in passing the order dated 12.01.2021.

11. So far as the argument that the
order dated 12.01.2021 does not contain any
reasons and thus has to be set-aside, suffice
is to state that only the order has been setaside and it would always be open for the
petitioner to file his objections in the said
case when called upon by the court
concerned.

12. Taking into consideration the
aforesaid, no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)01ILR A909
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 14204 of 2020

Bajrangi Lal Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Shitlesh Pandey, Sri Manjeet Kumar, Sri
Pramod Kumar Maurya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure - Sections 156(3), 200, 202,
203, 482 - Nature of dispute - Criminal
Courts should ensure that the proceedings
before it are not used for settling scores or
to pressurize parties to settle the civil
dispute. (Para 13)

The dispute of Civil Nature may also contain the
ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will
have to be tried as criminal offences even if
they also amount to civil dispute. But in the
present case ingredients to constitute offences
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mentioned in the complaint could not be shown
to exist on the material on record. (Para 15, 16)

Court also observed that the person with the
primary grievance did not file any complaint nor
appeared as witness. Therefore, did not find any
illegality in the order of Magistrate in dismissing
the complaint filed by the present applicant. Any
case, for interference in the exercise of
jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of
"preventing abuse of the process of Court" or
"to secure the ends of justice" is not made out.
(Para 19, 21)

Application Rejected. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Mohd. Ibrahim Vs St.of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC
751 (Para 13)

2. Medmeme, LLC & ors. Vs Ihorse BPO
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 13 SCC 374 (Para 14)

3. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1960 SC 866
(Para 17)

4.St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604
(Para 17)

5. Rakhi Mishra Vs St. of Bihar, (2017) 16 SCC
772 (Para 17)

Present
application
challenges
orders
dated 09.01.2020 and 04.08.2020, passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau and
Session Judge, Mau respectively.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Maurya,
Advocate holding brief of Shri Shitlesh
Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The applicant has challenged the
order dated 09.01.2020, passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Criminal
Case No. 5864 of 2018 (Bajrangi Lal Gupta
verus State of U.P. and another) by which his
complaint was rejected. He has also
challenged the order dated 04.08.2020 passed
by learned Session Judge, Mau in Criminal
Revision No. 13 of 2020 (Computerized No.
CNR No. UPMA01-000657-2020 by which
his revision was also dismissed.

3. The applicant stating himself to be
sister's son of Maina Devi (Mausi) filed the
complaint case that opposite party no. 2
(Bhanja) of Maina Devi fraudulently got
executed a registered sale deed dated
06.04.2017 with respect to Gata No. 513 M
area 14 kadi situated in Village Korauli,
Tehsil Ghosi District, Mau from Maina Devi
without making payment of any sale
consideration, whereas the applicant had been
looking after his Mausi.

4. The applicant's application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected by
Magistrate, against which, he filed Criminal
Revision No. 198 of 2018 and after decision,
therein the complaint was filed for taking
action for the offences under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

5. The statement of the applicant was
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the
statement of P.W.-1 Shankar Prasad and P.W.-
2 Lalji were recorded under Section 202
Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Magistrate by order
dated 04.01.2020 rejected the complaint and
the applicant's revision was also rejected on
04.08.2020 as aforesaid.

7. The Magistrate rejected the
compliant on the grounds that the dispute
was predominantly of civil nature. The
remedy by way of civil suit was available.
The applicant had not stated if his Mausi
1 All. Bajrangi Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
911
was alive or not and that no prima facie
case for summoning was made out.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that prima facie, coginzable
offence for summoning was made out against
the opposite party no. 2 and the Magistrate
rejected the complaint under Section 203
Cr.P.C. in cursory manner. The revisional
court also did not consider this aspect of the
matter and illegally dismissed the revision.

9. Learned A.G.A. submits that the
orders under challenge do not suffer from any
illegality as the dispute was of civil nature.

10. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant
and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the material on record.

11. A perusal of the complaint shows
that the dispute is predominantly a civil
dispute regarding execution of sale deed by
the applicant's Mausi in favour of opposite
party no. 2.

12. As per the own case of the applicant
Maina Devi was recorded tenure holder. If
the sale consideration passed to the transferor
or not, can be considered in the suit said to be
pending,
in
the
statement
of
the
applicant/complainant
recorded
under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the court of Civil
Judge (Junior Division).

13. In Mohd Ibrahim versus State of
Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, it has been held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is growing
tendency of the complainants attempting to
give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters
which are essentially and purely civil in
nature, obviously either to apply pressure on
the accused or out of enmity towards the
accused, or to subject the accused to
harassment. Criminal courts should ensure
that the proceedings before it are not used for
settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle
the civil dispute.

14. In Medmeme, LLC and others
versus Ihorse BPO Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) 13 SCC 374 where the dispute
between the parties was of civil nature and
proceedings in respect of the same were
pending before the arbitrator the proceedings
of the criminal complaint were quashed.
Paragraph nos. 12 to 15 of Medmeme, LLC
(supra) are being reproduced as under:-

"12. After going through the
allegations contained in the complaint and the
material on record, we are of firm conclusion
that the matter entirely pertains to civil
jurisdiction and not even a prima facie case is
made out for offences Under Sections 420,
406, 409 read with Section 120B of Indian
Penal Code even if the allegations contained
in the complaint are to be taken on their face
value. The complaint gives a clear impression
that it was primarily a case where the
Respondent had alleged breach of contract on
the part of the Appellants in not making the
entire payments for the services rendered to
the Appellants. On the other hand, it is not in
dispute that substantial amounts have been
paid by the Appellants to the Respondentcompany for the services rendered.

13. Reason for non-payment of
the balance amount as given by the
Appellants is that the services rendered by
the Respondent-company were not in terms
of the agreement entered into between the
parties and were deficient in nature. For
this reason, even the Appellants have filed
claims against the Respondent-company
alleging that Appellant suffered losses
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
because of the defective services provided
by the Respondent.

14. On the basis of it, we find that it
cannot be said that at the time of entering into
the agreement, either the first agreement or even
the second agreement, there was any intention
on the part of the Appellants to cheat the
Respondent. No suspicion of any nature was
shown or even alleged. It is also not the
allegation of the Respondent in the complaint
that the agreement was entered into with
fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of
the Appellants in inducing the Respondent to
enter into such a contract. At best, the dispute
between the parties is of a civil nature,
proceedings in respect of which are pending
before the learned Arbitrator.

15. We, thus, allow this appeal, set
aside the judgment of the High Court and
thereby allow the petition filed by the
Appellants in the High Court Under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The result
whereof would be quashing of the proceedings
arising out of Complaint No. 142 of 2012
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II,
Puducherry."

15. In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra)
it has also been held that the Dispute of Civil
Nature may also contain the ingredients of
criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried
as criminal offences even if they also amount to
civil dispute.

16. It could not be established before this
Court as to how on the basis of the averments of
the complaint and the material on record prima
facie case for summoning of the opposite party
no. 2 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,
472, 504, 506 I.P.C. was made out. The
ingredients to constitute such offences could not
be shown to exist on the material on record.

17. It has also been well settled in law in
the cases of:-

a. R.P. Kapur versus State of
Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866,

b.
State
of
Haryana
versus
Bhajanlal AIR 1992 SC 604 and

c. Rakhi Mishra versus State of
Bihar (2017) 16 SCC 772, that at the stage of
summoning, the Magistrate has to satisfy
judiciously, if prima facie case is made out or
not on the material available on record for
summoning the accused persons.

18. The learned Magistrate has recorded
that the applicant failed to state if his Mausi
(Maina Devi) was alive or not. The complaint
was filed by the applicant but not by Maina
Devi and even she did not appear as a witness
under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

19. The primary grievance, if any, would
be to Maina Devi, but if she did not file any
complaint nor appeared as witness, this Court
does not find any illegality in the order of
Magistrate in dismissing the complaint filed by
the present applicant.

20. The revisional court has also on
judicious considerations rightly rejected the
revision.

21. The order passed by the Magistrate is
in conformity with law. Any case, for
interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of
"preventing abuse of the process of Court" or to
secure the ends of justice" is not made out.

22. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. deserves to be rejected. It is
accordingly rejected.

23. No orders as to cost.
----------
1 All. Pradeep Tomar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
913
(2021)01ILR A913
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 4804 of 2020

Pradeep Tomar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Sri D.K. Agrahari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rama Shankar Mishra

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India: Article
227; Indian Penal Code: Section 363; U.P.
Marriage
Registration
Rules,
2017;
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012: Section 5/6 - Merely
because
child
marriages
have
been
performed in different parts of the country
as a part of a tradition or custom does not
necessarily mean that the tradition is an
acceptable one nor should it be sanctified
as such. Times change and what was
acceptable a few decades ago may not
necessarily be acceptable today. (Para 9)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015: Section 94, 94(2) -
Reference to a medico-legal examination
for the determination of age - The
provisions of Section 94(2) makes it vivid that in
the face of a date of birth certificate from the
school or the matriculation or equivalent
certificate from the concerned examination
Board, the other evidence about the age of a
victim cannot be looked into. If the date of birth
certificate as envisaged in clause (i) of subSection (2) of S.94 of the Act is not available,
the birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat is the next
evidence to be considered in the rung. It is
only
when
the
evidence
about
age
envisaged under clauses (i) and (ii) of
Sub-Section (2) of S. 94 of the Act is not
available, that a victim can be referred to
a
medico-legal
examination
for
the
determination of her age.

In the present case, Court held that even if it is
the prosecutrix's stand, that she is 18 years old,
and has married Pintoo of her free will, she
cannot be regarded as a major or permitted to
prove herself a major, by asking herself to be
referred to medical examination by a Board of
Doctors, so long as her High School Certificate is
clear on the point. (Para 12)

C. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006:
Section 3, 12 - It was found that prosecutrix
was not enticed away from her guardian's lawful
custody. She left her home on her own and
married accused. Therefore, marriage was not
held to be void but voidable. (Para 13 to 15)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Precedent mentioned:

Suhani Vs St. of U.P., (2018) SCC Online SC 781
(Para 12)

Precedent followed:

1. Independent Thought Vs U.O.I. & anr.,
(2017) 10 SCC 800 (Para 9)

2. Jarnail Singh Vs St. of Hary., (2013) 7 SCC
263 (Para 11)

3. Smt. Priyanka Devi through her husband Vs
St. of U.P. & ors., 2018 (1) ACR 1061 (Para 11)

4. Smt. Nisha Naaz alias Anuradha & anr. Vs
St. of U.P. & ors., 2019 (2) ACR 2075 (Para
12)

Precedent overruled:

1. Smt. Rajkumari Vs Superintendent, Nari
Niketan, 1998 Cr.L.J. 654 (All.) (Para 8)

2. Smt. Ramsati @ Syamasti Vs St. of U.P.,
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 245 of 2015,
decided on 07.09.2015 (Para 8)