# Devinderjeet Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1503
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3268 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devinderjeet-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50881
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 245(2) - Complainant lodged FIR
1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against
revisionist
and
four
others
alleging that, after inducing business
relations in 2012, revisionist persuaded
him
to
hand
over
original
share
certificates, blank share forms, and signed
blank papers on assurance of payment of
₹13.22 crore for his shareholding - These
were
misused
to
remove
him
from
directorship of M/s J.S.S. Build Con Pvt.
Ltd., leading to separate registration of
F.I.R where investigation is pending -
Informant
alleged
despite
repeated
demands, revisionist failed to return his
papers, continued to advise him on
various matters including proceedings
before NCLT - On 01.07.2017, revisionist,
in conspiracy with others, misused signed
blank papers to fraudulently transfer
2,500 shares into his own name without
his consent - Case registered against
revisionist & ors. - Protest petition of
informant treated as complaint case, upon
examination,
accused,
including
revisionist summoned - Summoning order
challenged in Criminal Revision, dismissed
- Revisionist preferred application for
quashing of summoning order, rejected -
Accused moved discharge application,
dismissed - Revisionist contends that
dispute is purely civil, arising out of
money claim, and cannot be given criminal
case - Summoning order, though ex parte
in nature, requires judicial satisfaction
based on evidence on record - While
accused cannot adduce defence evidence
at this stage, entitled to point out defects
or infirmities in prosecution case - Trial
court's refusal to consider objections
given by accused on ground that no new
evidence
produced,
reflects
flawed
approach, contrary to law - Impugned
order, set aside. (Para 3, 7)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

## Text

2 All. Devinderjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1503

(4) Complain of pain over lower
back. KUO

(5) Complain of pain over chest,
back of chest, abdomen.

29. The injured Ram Chandra
Kushwaha was medically examined on
25.08.2015 at 5.50 p.m. Following injuries
were found on the person of Ram Chandra
Kushwaha :

(1) Contused swelling 5 cm x 4
cm over top of right shoulder joint. KUO.

(2) Contused swelling 3.5 cm x 2
cm over right side chest. 6 cm above from
right nipple. KUO. Red in colour.

(3) Complain of pain over lower
back.

(4)
Complain
of
pain
over
anterior chest.

(5) Complain of pain over left
side back.

30. From the definition of the offence
of attempt to commit culpable homicide
provided u/s 308 I.P.C., it is obvious that no
grievous injury or injury on the vital part of
the body is required. Only the injured must
be attacked by the accused with requisite
intention or knowledge.

31. In Tukaram Gundu Naik Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (1994) 1 SCC 465,
where none of the injuries had affected any
vital part of the body and it was doubtful
whether the accused had intended to
commit murder of the victim, the Apex
Court attributed only knowledge that by
inflicting such injuries, he was likely to
cause death and it was held that an attempt
to such an offence would be punishable u/s
308 I.P.C.

32. In the light of the statement of the
injured, Ram Chandra Kushwaha and that
of eye-witnesses, Habib Ansari and Jitendra
Madheshiya and the injury report of the
aforesaid injured, the trial court has rightly
held that prima facie offence u/s 323 and
308 I.P.C. is made out against the accused
and has directed framing of charges under
these sections. There is no illegality,
irregularity or impropriety in the impugned
order passed by the trial court.

33. There is no merit in the criminal
revision and the same is liable to be
dismissed.

34.

The
criminal
revision
is
dismissed, accordingly.

35. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary
action.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1503
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3268 of 2023

Devinderjeet Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Sri Arvind Kumar
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Aushim Luthra, Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim,
Sri Vikas Chandra Srivastava, Sri Manish Tiwary
(Sr. Advocate), Sri V.P. Srivastava (Sr. Advocate)

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 245(2) - Complainant lodged FIR
1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against
revisionist
and
four
others
alleging that, after inducing business
relations in 2012, revisionist persuaded
him
to
hand
over
original
share
certificates, blank share forms, and signed
blank papers on assurance of payment of
₹13.22 crore for his shareholding - These
were
misused
to
remove
him
from
directorship of M/s J.S.S. Build Con Pvt.
Ltd., leading to separate registration of
F.I.R where investigation is pending -
Informant
alleged
despite
repeated
demands, revisionist failed to return his
papers, continued to advise him on
various matters including proceedings
before NCLT - On 01.07.2017, revisionist,
in conspiracy with others, misused signed
blank papers to fraudulently transfer
2,500 shares into his own name without
his consent - Case registered against
revisionist & ors. - Protest petition of
informant treated as complaint case, upon
examination,
accused,
including
revisionist summoned - Summoning order
challenged in Criminal Revision, dismissed
- Revisionist preferred application for
quashing of summoning order, rejected -
Accused moved discharge application,
dismissed - Revisionist contends that
dispute is purely civil, arising out of
money claim, and cannot be given criminal
case - Summoning order, though ex parte
in nature, requires judicial satisfaction
based on evidence on record - While
accused cannot adduce defence evidence
at this stage, entitled to point out defects
or infirmities in prosecution case - Trial
court's refusal to consider objections
given by accused on ground that no new
evidence
produced,
reflects
flawed
approach, contrary to law - Impugned
order, set aside. (Para 3, 7)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate holding brief for Sri Vikas
Chandra Srivastava, Sri Manish Tiwary,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Syed
Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2, Sri O.P. Mishra,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed by the revisionist- Devinderjeet
Singh Sethi challenging the order dated
27.07.2022 passed in Complaint Case
No.2322 of 2018 "Rishi Agarwal vs.
Devinderjeet and Others", whereby the
court
of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate dismissed an application filed
under section- 245(2) Cr.P.C. and posted
the case for framing of charge under
sections- 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B
I.P.C.

3. Relevant facts as emerging from
record are as below:-

(I)
The
complainant-
Rishi
Agarwal lodged an F.I.R. against the
revisionist- Devinderjeet Singh, four other
named persons and certain unknown
persons with the allegations in nutshell that
the first informant's company is in the
business of sale and purchase of property in
Delhi
NCR;
the
accused-revisionist
Devinderjeet Singh Sethi came in his
contact in 2012 telling him that he is
engaged in the business of giving money on
credit; a meeting was fixed by one Piyush
Tiwari and they entered into business
relations; the complainant trusted the
accused Devinderjeet; over a period of time
certain disagreements arose with coaccused Piyush Tiwari; Devinderjeet Singh
Sethi offered to settle the matter between
him and the first informant; a meeting was
arranged between all the shareholders and
it was agreed that the shareholders shall
purchase the first informant's share holding
of Rs.13,22,50,000/-; Devinderjeet Singh
2 All. Devinderjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1505
Sethi was successful in persuading him to
handover original share certificates, blank
share forms and certain signed blank papers
saying that he will keep them in safe
custody and will utilize only when the price
thereof Rs.13,22,50,000/- is actually paid to
the first informant. A few days thereafter he
came to know that by misusing his signed
paper, he has been removed from the
directorship of the company, M/s. J.S.S.
Build Con Pvt. Ltd.; therefore, he filed a
separate F.I.R. (Case Crime No.728 of
2016) at Kalikaji, New Delhi in which the
investigation is going on.

Further, the first informant asked
the accused-revisionist to return all his
papers but he kept on avoiding on different
pretext; till then, he never doubted the
intentions of the accused-revisionist and
has always been discussing and getting
advised from him about his matters and
also about the case, which is going on in
NCLT, New Delhi; he came to know on
01.07.2017 that the accused-revisionist has
given an application for transfer of 2500
shares in his name by misusing his signed
blank papers; it is alleged that he hatched a
conspiracy with others; the first informant
had never given any consent for transfer of
his shares and he got the shares transferred
in his own name in a fraudulent manner.
Therefore, the case is registered under
sections- 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B
I.P.C. against the accused-revisionist and
others.

(II) The investigation commenced
and statements of witnesses were recorded.
The Investigating Officer filed a final
report purportedly for lack of evidence
against the accused persons.

(III) The protest application of
first informant was treated as a complaint
case and after examination of complainant,
his witnesses and inquiry under section 202
Cr.P.C., accused- Devinderjeet Singh Sethi,
Piyush Tiwari, Paritosh Kumar Sharma and
Ankti Sharma were summoned for the
offence under sections- 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120B I.P.C. by an order dated
31.07.2018.

(IV)
The
accused
person
challenged the summoning order by filing a
revision before the court concerned. The
Criminal Revision No.187 of 2018 was
dismissed and the summoning order was
affirmed by an order dated 18.02.2019. It
may be noted that the copy of order passed
by the revisional court is not available on
record.

(V)
The
instant
revisionist
preferred an Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.)
No.10622 of 2019, which was heard and
decided refusing the relief of quashing the
order of summoning.

(VI)
Thereafter,
the
accused
persons filed a discharge application under
section- 245(2) of Cr.P.C. giving his side of
the story.

(VII) In nutshell, it is stated in
application for discharge that infact the first
informant duly sold the shares against full
and final payment by the accused over a
period from 31th March, 2013 to 2016;
details whereof have been given in the
application itself; before filing of this
F.I.R., the first informant- Rishi Agarwal
had filed another F.I.R. against Piyush
Tiwari, Paritosh Sharma and Ankit Sharma
on
the
basis
of
same
set
of
documents/evidence
which
have
been
given with the instant F.I.R.; there has not
been any conspiracy; no signed papers
were misused by him; the sale transaction
are duly reflected in balance-sheets of the
company; the balance-sheets have been
duly audited by the CA; the accused has
cleared all the amount due to the first
informant; no such meeting as alleged by
1506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the first informant was held on 11.03.2014;
at the most the dispute can be termed one
of civil nature only; there has not been any
dishonest inducement or intention etc.; as
no forged paper was prepared and no
conspiracy was hatched, therefore no
offence is made out against him.

(VIII) The learned trial court
heard both the sides on this application and
the same was dismissed on 27.07.2022.
Now accused is before this Court in this
criminal revision.

4. The crux of the contentions placed
before this Court relate to the plea taken by
the revisionist that it is a matter of claim of
money and no more, therefore dispute is
merely of civil nature and the complainant
cannot be allowed to convert the same into
a criminal case. Secondly, the learned
Magistrate did not even look into the
documents like bank statements, the
balance-sheets, the true copy of share
certificates and other documents produced
on his behalf in support of his discharge
application. Thirdly, there is no material to
show that the revisionist nurtured a
dishonest
intention
since
the
very
beginning or practised any deception to
induce delivery of property or that any
forged paper was prepared by him. It is
vehemently argued that the learned trial
court should have considered the pleas and
the contentions placed on his behalf instead
of passing a cryptic order.

5. I went through the impugned order;
the learned trial court has noted down the
facts as alleged by the complainant; and
thereafter has noted down the other side of
the story as given in the application by the
accused. In the last but one para of the
order, the trial court has held as below:-

"प्रस्िुि मामले में वादी िे अनभयुक्तगण के नवरूद्ध
प्रोटेस्ट प्राथािा पत्र न्यायालय में दानखल नकया। प्राथािापत्र को
स्वीकार करिे हुए नदिांक 09.05.2018 को अंनिम आख्या
02/2018 नदिांक 24.01.2018 को निरस्ि करिे हुए उक्त
प्रकरण पररवाद के रूप में दजा नकया गया। पररवादी द्वारा िारा-
200द०प्र०सं० व 202 द०प्र०सं० में पेश नकये गये साक्षीगण की
साक्ष्य के उपरान्ि प्रथम दृष्टया मामला पािे हुए न्यायालय द्वारा पाररि
आदेश नदिांनकि 31.07.2018 के िहि अनभयुक्तगण
नदवीन्द्रजीि नसंह सेठी, पीयूष निवारी, पररिोष कुमार शमाा व अंनकि
शमाा
को
िारा-420,406,467,468,471,120b
आई०पी०सी० में िलब नकया गया। अनभयुक्तगण को िलब नकये
जािे के िलबी आदेश नदिांनकि 31.07.2018 के नवरूद्ध
पररवादी द्वारा माििीय निगरािी न्यायालय में दानण्डक पुिरीक्षण
संख्या-187सि् 2018 देवेन्द्रजीि नसंह सेठी बिाम उत्तर प्रदेश
सरकार व ररषी अग्रवाल आनद निगरािी प्रस्िुि की। माििीय
पुिरीक्षण न्यायालय द्वारा उपरोक्त पुिरीक्षण में पाररि आदेश
नदिांनकि 18.02.2019 में यह आदेश पाररि नकया गया नक-
"बनगरानी खाररज की जाती है। दाबण्डक पररवाद संख्या
2300/2018 ऋबष अग्रवाल बनाम देवेन्रजीत बसंह सेठी
आबद अं० धारा 406,420,467,468,471, 120b
IPC थाना सैक्टर-49 नोएडा बजला गौतमबुद्धनगर में बद्वतीय
अपर मुख्य न्याबयक मबजस्रेट, गौतमबुद्धनगर द्वारा पाररत
आदेश बदनांबकत 31.07.2018 पुष्ट बकया जाता है।"
अबियुि को तलब बकये जाने के उपरान्त अिी तक ऐसा कोई
नवीन साक्ष्य अथवा नवीन तथ्य अथवा कोई बस्थबत पररवतान
होने का साक्ष्य नहीं है। अबियुिगण द्वारा जो तथ्य प्रस्तुत
बकये गये वह साक्ष्य का बवषय है, बजनको साक्ष्य के स्तर पर
ही देखा जाना है।"

6. Before proceeding any further,
provisions of Section- 245(2) of Cr.P.C.
must be noted, which is as below:-

"(2) Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from
discharging the accused at any previous
stage of the case if, for reasons to be
recorded by such Magistrate, he considers
the charge to be groundless."

7. The law gives an opportunity to the
accused person to place his contentions
before the court concerned, even before the
complainant has had an opportunity to
2 All. Kumari Nidhi Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1507
produce his evidence under section- 244
Cr.P.C. Undoubtedly, the provisions of
Section- 245(2) Cr.P.C. have certain
purpose. The opportunity which has been
provided
by
law
cannot
be
dealt
perfunctorily. It appears that the trial court
just took shelter of the order passed by the
revisional court by which the summoning
order was challenged. A minute difference
between the two stages may be noted. The
summoning order is passed at a stage where
the accused has no say in the matter and at
that stage, the order is passed rather in an
ex-parte manner, if I may be permitted to
use this word. No doubt at that stage as
well, the Court is obliged to consider the
evidence before it and to arrive at a
satisfaction that there are grounds for
summoning the accused. However, the
opportunity as provided to the accused
person under section- 245(2) Cr.P.C. is
different inasmuch at that stage the accused
has an opportunity to place his side of the
story and therefore at that stage, the trial
court is better equipped to weigh the
evidence (which is already on record) in a
more balanced manner. The opportunity
which was not available to the accused is
now available to him at that stage. The trial
court is not expected to not consider the
merits of the contentions of the accused
side and merely pass an order saying
nonchalantly that no new evidence has
come in between. It is noteworthy at this
juncture, that though the accused side
cannot produce any evidence in defence,
but he has every right to point out the
defects, deficiencies or infirmities, which
may already be there in the prosecution
story or the evidence produced by the
complainant. As is very clear from the
order itself, the learned trial court refused
to go into the merits of the objections
raised by the accused person on the premise
that no new evidence has come. This is a
flawed approach and against the provisions
of law. The impugned order suffers from
illegality, impropriety and is therefore
liable to be set-aside.

8. The impugned order is set-aside.
The learned trial court is directed to pass a
fresh order after giving an appropriate
opportunity of hearing.

9. Copy of this order be transmitted to
the court concerned immediately.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1507
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3478 of 2023

Kumari Nidhi Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Sri Saurabh Sachan

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Bipin Kumar, Sri Mohd. Naushad
Siddiqui

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 -
Section
20
-
Against
rejection
of
maintenance application - Family Court
erred in dismissing applicant's claim for
maintenance from her father solely on
ground of her attaining majority, despite
her being unmarried at time of impugned
judgment - Parents' marriage dissolved by
decree of divorce, wherein lump-sum
maintenance awarded only to mother and
minor
son,
as
revisionist
was
then
residing with her father - Family Court