# Chhitar Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 377
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-18
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 12664 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chhitar-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45253
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
&
Indian
Penal Code,1862- Section 406 & U.P.
Regulation of Cold Storage Act,1976Section
25-quashing
of-complaintusurping price money of potato, hired in
the cold storage is a criminal breach of
trust u/s 406 IPC not in the category of
compensation u/s 24 of the Cold Storage
Act,1976-procedure u/s 25 of the Act is
not relevant with the fact of the present
case.(Para 12 to 15)

B. The initial condition precedent for
constituting an offence of criminal breach
of trust is dishonest misappropriation or
conversion to its own uses, and in the
present
case,
the
accusation
is
of
dishonest conversion and sale of potatoes
for its own use, thereby usurping price
money for such is punishable u/s 406 IPC
whereas section 24 of the Act,1976
provides
provision
for
payment
of
compensation caused to hirer, by way of
loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or
non-delivery of the goods stored in his
cold storage. It is limited only to the
negligence, misconduct or default on the
part of such licensee.(Para 6 to 9)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

10 All. Chhitar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
377
is justified by the tests specifically laid
down
in
the
section
itself."
While
interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court
Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State,
Represented by Inspector of Police,
(2006) 7 SCC 296 has propounded "High
Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in
the interest of justice. It can do so while
exercising other jurisdictions such as
appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No
formal application for invoking inherent
jurisdiction
is
necessary.
Inherent
jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of
substantive as well as procedural matters.
It can as well be exercised in respect of
incidental
or
supplemental
power
irrespective of nature of proceedings".

7. Regarding prevention of abuse of
process
of
Court,
Apex
Court
in
Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494 has
propounded "To prevent abuse of the process
of the Court, High Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under section 482 could
quash the proceedings but there would be
justification for interference only when the
complaint did not disclose any offence or was
frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as
in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan,
(1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex
Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 High Court would not
embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations in the complaint are likely to be
established by evidence or not".

8. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as
above.

9. Accordingly, this application merits
its dismissal. Dismissed as such.
----------
(2020)10ILR A377
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12664 of 2020

Chhitar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Bala Nath Mishra, Sri Ram Vishal Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
&
Indian
Penal Code,1862- Section 406 & U.P.
Regulation of Cold Storage Act,1976Section
25-quashing
of-complaintusurping price money of potato, hired in
the cold storage is a criminal breach of
trust u/s 406 IPC not in the category of
compensation u/s 24 of the Cold Storage
Act,1976-procedure u/s 25 of the Act is
not relevant with the fact of the present
case.(Para 12 to 15)

B. The initial condition precedent for
constituting an offence of criminal breach
of trust is dishonest misappropriation or
conversion to its own uses, and in the
present
case,
the
accusation
is
of
dishonest conversion and sale of potatoes
for its own use, thereby usurping price
money for such is punishable u/s 406 IPC
whereas section 24 of the Act,1976
provides
provision
for
payment
of
compensation caused to hirer, by way of
loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or
non-delivery of the goods stored in his
cold storage. It is limited only to the
negligence, misconduct or default on the
part of such licensee.(Para 6 to 9)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases Cited:-

1. St. Of A.P. Vs Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT (2010)
6 SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: (2010) Cr. LJ
3844

2. Hamida Vs Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474

3. Monica Kumar Vs St. Of U.P.,(2008) 8 SCC
781

4. Popular Muthiah Vs St.,Rept. By Inspector of
Police,(2006) 7 SCC 296

5. Dhanlakshmi Vs R. Prasana Kumar,(1990) Cr.
LJ 320 (DB): AIR (1990) SC 494

6. St. Of Bih. Vs Murad Ali Khan,(1989) Cr. LJ
1005: AIR (1989) SC 1

7. Amrawati & anr. Vs St. Of U.P.,(2004) 57 ALR
290

8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs St. Of
U.P.,(2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. The applicants namely, Chhitar
Singh, Tejveer Singh and Neeraj Singh, by
means of this application under Section 482
Cr.P.C.,
have
invoked
the
inherent
jurisdiction of the Court with prayer for
quashing impugned order dated 1.5.2019,
10.10.2017, 18.11.2019 and 5.2.2020, passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate, Iglas, District
Aligarh, with entire proceeding of Complaint
Case No. 615 of 2017, Karamveer Singh Vs.
Chittar Singh and others, pending in the court
of learned Judicial Magistrate, Iglas, Aligarh,
under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Iglas, District
Aligarh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that this Court in a proceeding
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. No. 46991 of
2019, Chittar Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P. and another, vide order 7.1.2020, has
directed learned trial Court for getting a
report from District Horticulture Officer,
Aligarh, with regard to reference to be
made under Section 25 of U.P. Regulation
of Cold Storage Act, 1976 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') and if reference, as per
provision of above Act was there and report
is being submitted, then after case may be
proceeded in accordance with above legal
provision.
A
report
from
District
Horticulture
Officer
of
Aligarh
was
obtained, wherein, finding of liability of
Rs. 62,392/-, was reported by District
Horticulture Officer of Aligarh. It has been
mentioned in its report that a complaint was
made by Karamveer Singh in Kisan Diwas,
held on 19.10.2016, which is entered in
serial No. 478, regarding deposit of potato
on two dates by two receipts in cold storage
of M/s RSD Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
G-28, Gyan Sarover Colony, Ramghat
Road Aligarh, U.P., and it was usurped by
owner of above cold storage. Payment of
same was not made. District Horticulture
Officer issued notice to owner of cold
storage as well as complainant, whereupon,
some compromise on 28.11.2016, was
entered in between, but there is no
reference as to whether that compromise
was obeyed or not. But the compromise
entered in between makes the accounting as
above, resulting liability of Rs. 62392/-,
and trial Court after this report, proceeded
by way of issuing coercive process against
applicants. But it was neither a reference
made to District Horticulture Officer not a
disposal of reference as per provision of
above Act. Section 25 of said Act makes a
provision that amount fixed by District
Horticulture Officer, will be recoverable as
land revenue and recovery certificate is to
be issued to Revenue Officer i.e. District
10 All. Chhitar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
379
Collector and the same shall be acted upon
in the way of recovery of public money as
land
revenue.
No
coercive
criminal
proceeding is to be instituted under above
provision. Hence, the very contention,
since the beginning, by applicants, was
neither adjudged by District Horticulture
Officer nor by Magistrate concerned nor by
revisional court and all those impugned
orders are under abuse of process of law.
Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this
application has been filed with above
prayer.

4. Learned AGA has vehemently
opposed the above prayer.

5. From the very perusal of complaint,
it is apparent that the same was filed by
Karamveer Singh against Chhitar Singh
and Tejveer Singh, with accusation of
offence of criminal breach of trust. It was
specifically accused that potato in two lots
were deposited in above cold storage, but
the same was sold for personal benefit by
accused persons and the money was
usurped. For this offence, there was
summoning for offence punishable under
Section 406 of IPC. This summoning order
was challenged before revisional Court of
Session
Judge,
Aligarh,
in
Criminal
Revision No. 19/2018, wherein, after
hearing both sides, revision was dismissed.
Thereby, impugned summoning order dated
10.10.2017 was confirmed. A proceeding
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed with
above contention of Section 25 of Act as
above
and
this
Court
perusing
the
admission of act of deposit of potato in
above cold storage and legal provision of
Section 25 of U.P. Regulation of Cold
Storage Act, 1976, passed order dated
7.1.2020, with a direction to trial Court for
getting the version of District Horticulture
Officer,
Aligarh,
over
above
legal
proposition and till above exercise an order
of protection was given in favour of
applicants. Trial Court did exercise and
obtained report from District Horticulture
Officer,
Aligarh,
wherein,
above
outstanding amount of Rs. 62,392/-, in
favour of complainant against accused
persons have been adjudged.

6. The legal proposition of Section 25
of Act, "Dispute regarding compensation to
be referred to the Licensing Officer - (1)
Every dispute regarding compensation
payable by the licensee under Section 24
shall be referred to the Licensing Officer,
and subject to the result of appeal, if any,
under Section 36, the order of the
Licensing Officer shall be final."

7. That is, Section 24 of the Act
provides procedure with regard to payment
of compensation referred to Licensing
Officer and compensation which is payable
under Section 24 of the Act Act.

8.

Section
24
of
the
Act:-
"Compensation for loss, destruction, etc. -
Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
the licensee shall be liable to pay to the
hirer
compensation
for
every
loss,
destruction, damage, deterioration or nondelivery of the goods stored in his cold
storage
caused
by
the
negligence,
misconduct or default on the part of such
licensee."

9. That is, Section 24 of the Act
provides
provision
for
payment
of
compensation caused to hirer, by way of
loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or
non-delivery of the goods stored in his cold
storage and such loss destruction, damage,
deterioration or non-delivery of the goods,
is owing to negligence, misconduct or
default on the part of such licensee i.e. it is
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
limited only to the negligence, misconduct
or default on the part of licensee and if by
such negligence, misconduct or default on
the part of such licensee, same damage,
loss, destruction or deterioration or non
delivery of goods stored in above cold
storage is being caused to hirer, then the
compensation is to be adjudged under
section 25 of the Act, and is with regard to
above liability, which falls under Section
24 of the Act.

10. Whereas, for offence punishable
under Section 406 of IPC, the criminal
mensrea, which makes a criminal breach of
trust is punishable under Section 406.

11. Section 405 of I.P.C. provides
definition of criminal breach of trust as:-
"Whoever, being in any manner entrusted
with property, or with any dominion over
property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that
property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is
to be discharged, or of any legal contract,
express or implied, which he has made
touching the discharge of such trust, or
wilfully suffers any other person so to do,
commits ?criminal breach of trust?. "

12. Meaning thereby, for constituting
of criminal breach of trust the enstrustment
with property or dominion over property is
a condition. Other condition is with
dishonest misappropriation or conversion
to its own use or dishonest uses or
dispossess of that property in violation of
any direction of law prescribing the mode
in which such trust is to be discharged or of
any legal contract, express or implied with
regard to discharging of such trust. Hence,
the
initial
condition
precedent
for
constituting an offence of criminal breach
of trust is, dishonest misappropriation or
conversion to its own uses and in the
present complaint case, the accusation is of
dishonest conversion and sale of potatos for
its own use, thereby, usurping price money
for such and this criminal breach of trust is
punishable under Section 406 of IPC.
Hence, this complaint, in the present case
was for the offence of criminal breach of
trust punishable under section 406 of IPC
by way of criminal breach of trust, thereby,
usurping price money of potato, hired in
above cold storage by accused persons and
this criminal breach of trust is not given in
category of compensation under Section 24
of Act. Hence, the entire argument relating
to procedure under Section 25 of Act is not
applicable with the fact of present case.
Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal.

13. Moreso, this Court in exercise of
inherent power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to make analytical
analysis of evidence and fact of the case, as
the same is the question before trial court.
Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v.
Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588:
(2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844,
Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474,
Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2008) 8 SCC 781, as well as in Popular
Muthiah
v.
State,
Represented
by
Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296.

14. However, it is made clear that
above findings of this Court will not cause
any prejudice in fair trial of this complaint
case.

15. Dismissed, accordingly.

16. However, in the interest of justice,
it is provided that if the applicants appear
and surrender before the court below within
thirty (30) days from today and apply for
10 All. Mohammad Shoeb Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
381
bail, then the bail application of the
applicants be considered and decided in
view of the settled law laid by this Court in
the case of Amrawati and another Vs.
State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR
290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322
(SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs.
State of U.P.

17. For a period of thirty (30) days
from today or till the disposal of the
application for grant of bail, whichever is
earlier, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants.

18. However, in case, the applicants
do not appear before the Court below,
within the aforesaid period, coercive action
shall be taken against them.

19. With the aforesaid directions, this
application stands disposed of, accordingly.
----------
(2020)10ILR A381
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.06.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 245 of 2020
&
Special Appeal Defective No. 209 of 2020
&
Special Appeal Defective No. 210 of 2020

Mohammad Shoeb Khan & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rahul Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Gautam Baghel

A. Service Law - Intermediate Education
Act,
1921
-
Section
16FF
-
Indian
Constitution - Article 30 - Appointment .

The appellants was selected and appointed in
the institution as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade.
Their appointment was approved by the District
Inspector of Schools. Joint Director of Education
found gross irregularities in the entire selection
process. The enquiry initiated at the behest of
the court reveals that their signatures have
been forged on the papers relating to selection
which were forwarded by the management.
Such
selection
procedure
in
a
minority
institution and rights of the respondents to
review or scrutinize an appointment made is
governed by the provisions made in Section
16FF. Serious discrepancies were found in the
selection process. The members who were
shown as constituting the Selection Committee
have not only denied having participated in any
such exercise, they have gone to the extent of
asserting that their signatures as stated to
appear on the record of selection have been
forged. (Para 13, 14)

The
Constitution
while
recognizing
and
preserving the right of minorities to establish
and administer educational institutions under
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution envisage it
to be a carte blanche to maladminister or to
ignore basic concepts of fairness which must
infuse any recruitment exercise. (Para 16)

Special Appeal Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Ajay Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 32932 of 2004

2. Sanjay Kumar Sigh Vs District Inspector of
Schools, Jaunpur & ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 9738 of 2009

3. TMA Pai Foundation Vs St. of Karnataka
(2002) 8 SCC 481