# Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 575
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-08
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 724 of 2012
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-rajesh-kumar-singh-anr-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-54516
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Govt.
Advocate,
Mandeep
Kumar
Mishra,
Prabhat, S.M. Royekwar

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860Sections 406, 504 & 506-No specific threats
amounting
to
criminal
intimidation-alleged
offences u/s 504 and 506 not prima facie made
out-ingredients to constitute the offence u/s 406
IPC are also absent, no voluntary entrustment
by complainant to the accused persons-merely
pendency of civil suit and non-payment of the
amount would not constitute the offence u/s
406 IPC.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs St. of Kerala &
ors. reported in 2015 (8) SCC 293

## Text

1 All. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
575
14th September, 2007 is hereby set
aside. The application under Section 319
Cr.P.C.
filed
by
the
prosecution
is
dismissed.

17. The petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 575
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 724 of 2012
Alongwith
Application U/S 482 No. 2966 of 2017

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sushil Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt.
Advocate,
Mandeep
Kumar
Mishra,
Prabhat, S.M. Royekwar

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860Sections 406, 504 & 506-No specific threats
amounting
to
criminal
intimidation-alleged
offences u/s 504 and 506 not prima facie made
out-ingredients to constitute the offence u/s 406
IPC are also absent, no voluntary entrustment
by complainant to the accused persons-merely
pendency of civil suit and non-payment of the
amount would not constitute the offence u/s
406 IPC.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs St. of Kerala &
ors. reported in 2015 (8) SCC 293
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)
1. The above two applications
have been filed by the respective accused
persons under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of the
charge sheet bearing No. 160/2010 dated
11th May, 2010, arising out of Case Crime
No. 241 of 2010, under Sections 406, 504
and 506 IPC, Police Station Ghazipur,
District Lucknow, and the charge sheet
bearing No. 160A/2014 dated 14th July,
2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 241A
of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504
and 506 IPC, Police Station Ghazipur,
District Lucknow, which were registered by
the rival parties against each others.
Besides,
the
applicants
have
also
challenged
the
respective
cognizance
orders dated 24th June, 2010 and 4th
September, 2014, whereby they have been
summoned
in
the
pending
criminal
proceedings.

2. Briefly the facts leading to the
applications are that two work orders for
setting up Sewerage Treatment Plants (STP)
and Effluent Treatment Plants (ETP) was
placed by M/s Sawen Consultancy Services
(hereinafter referred to as "Party No. I") to
M/s Eco Water Solutions Technologies
Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as
"Party No. II") vide letters dated 23.06.2008
and 04.07.2008, and relating to the said
works, dispute between the two companies
arose and litigation also commenced. Apart
from the civil litigation instituted by both
sides against each other, the respective parties
lodged criminal cases against each other for
their prosecution through the above noticed
two FIR(s). The applicants in Application u/s
482 No. 724 of 2012; titled Dr. Rajesh Kumar
Singh and another vs. the State of U.P and
another, are the Director and Joint Director,
respectively of "Party No. I", whereas
Sachchidanand Rai and Guna Kesh Rai are
Director(s) of "Party No. II".
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. The Case Crime No. 241/2010
was registered on the basis of a written
complaint dated 3rd April, 2010 given by
complainant Guna Kesh Rai, wherein it is
alleged that his company "Party No. II"
situated at B-38, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi received a work order
from "Party No. I" situated at 409-A, 426B, IVth Floor, Sahara Shopping Centre,
Faizabad Road, Lucknow and the total
worth of the two work orders was Rs.
20,00,000/-
and
Rs.
47,00,000/-
respectively, and against it, a sum of Rs.
23,80,500/- is outstanding. On demanding
the
money,
the
debtors
abused
the
complainant and extended threats, who also
refused to issue Form 'C'. Broadly, on these
allegations, the complainant prayed for
prosecution of the accused, i.e. Director(s)
of "Party No. I", whereupon the case was
registered for alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 406,
504 and 506 IPC.

4.

After
completion
of
investigation, the charge sheet against the
accused namely Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh
and Satendra Singh was filed, whereupon
the impugned cognizance order dated 24th
June, 2010 was passed by Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow.
Hence, this Application U/s 482 No. 724 of
2012.

5. The other FIR was registered at
the instance of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh,
who had also given a written complaint to
the police dated 3rd April, 2010, wherein it
is alleged that they had given order for
setting up Sewerage Treatment Plants
(STP) and Effluent Treatment Plants (ETP)
to "Party No. II", but the said firm left the
job incomplete, and in this regard, a legal
notice was served upon the defaulting firm.
In relation to the dispute, Sachchidanand
Rai called the complainant at Police Station
Ghazipur, where they all used abusive
language against the complainant and
refused to discuss the issue. Later, the
accused Sachchidanand Rai and few
unknown persons in the absence of the
officials/Director(s) of the complainant's
company came to the premises of their
company and proclaimed that they know
how to recover the money. The accused had
come in the vehicles bearing Nos. U.P.65-K
0009 'Safari', U.P. 32-C.N.3327 'Tavera'
and 'Scorpio' (number not known)". The
accused also misbehaved with Dr. Arpita
Sinha,
Junior
Manager.
On
these
allegations, the FIR was registered for
alleged commission of offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506
IPC, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow.

6. After completion of the
investigation in this case, the police
initially did not find any incriminating
material against the accused, and a final
report
under
Section
173(2)
Cr.P.C.
exonerating the accused was filed, but
aggrieved against the said final report,
complainant preferred a Protest Petition,
and thereafter, the Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow ordered
further investigation on 29th January, 2014
(Annexure No. '7').

7. In deference to the said order,
the investigating officer again looked into
the allegations and filed a charge sheet
against the accused on 14th July, 2014,
whereupon the impugned cognizance order
was passed on 4th September, 2014. Hence,
this Application u/s 482 No. 2966 of 2017.

8. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicants in Application u/s 482 No. 724
of 2012 has argued that the applicants are
1 All. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
577
the Director(s) of a renowned "Party No. I",
who were granted contract for setting up
Sewage Treatment Plants (STP) and
Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) at Medical
College Kannauj and to execute the said
job, they had further engaged "Party No. II"
and the said work was to be completed in a
stipulated period, but the same was not
completed. Learned counsel submits that
though the work was started by "Party No.
II" and was left incomplete, which gave
rise to a dispute between the parties and a
legal notice was issued to "Party No. II",
however later on, a civil suit dated 21st
April, 2011 for Rendition of Accounts was
filed by "Party No. I", which is pending
adjudication before the Commercial Court
at Lucknow. Learned counsel submits that
the other side has also instituted two suits
for recovery, i.e. the first suit instituted on
21st April, 2011 for recovery of a sum of
Rs. 38,57,512/- before the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi, followed by another
suit instituted on 5th May, 2011 at District
Court, Saket, New Delhi for recovery of a
sum of Rs. 5,25,786/-.

9. According to Mr. Sushil Kumar
Singh, learned counsel, the suit filed at the
Saket Court was stayed in terms of Section
10
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
being
subjudice, as the issues raised in the said
suit were identical to the issues raised by
the applicants Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh
and Satendra Singh in their suit at
Lucknow. Learned counsel submits that
apparently it is purely a civil dispute
between the parties and the impugned FIR
has been registered with an oblique motive
to pressurize the applicants. Learned
counsel has further pointed out that the
investigating officer has not analyzed the
allegations made in the impugned FIR, who
has filed the charge sheet under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C., whereupon the impugned
cognizance order has been passed against
the
applicants
of
petition
bearing
Application u/s 482 No. 724 of 2012.
Learned counsel submits that the alleged
offences are not made out, therefore, the
applicants have approached this Court for
quashing
of
the
impugned
criminal
proceedings.

10. The prayer is opposed by Mr.
Mandeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
for the complainant-opposite party no. 2
Guna Kesh Rai (applicant no. 2 in
Application u/s 482 No. 2966 of 2017;
titled Sachchidanand Rai and another vs.
State Of U.P. and another), who has argued
that once it is not disputed by the
Director(s) of "Party No. I" that pursuant to
the work order placed by their company in
favour of "Party No. II, the work was
carried out, and the cost incurred by the
company "Party No. II" has not been paid
by "Party No. I", much less in terms of the
written agreement between the parties,
therefore, this amounts to "breach of trust"
and prima facie the case punishable under
Section 406 IPC is made out against the
accused. Learned counsel further pointed
out
that
whenever
the
money
was
demanded from the debtors, they extended
threats, therefore, the offences punishable
under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are also
made out and the trial court has rightly
taken cognizance of the said offences, and
in this background, no interference is called
for by this Court in exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. Learned
counsel prays that the petition bearing
Application u/s 482 No. 724 of 2012 be
dismissed.

11. Mr. Mandeep Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel further argued that the FIR
against the Director(s) of "Party No. I" is
based upon the complaint dated 3rd April,
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2010, and in retaliation, complainant Dr.
Rajesh Kumar Singh has falsely implicated
them through the Case Crime No. 241A of
2010 registered for alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Learned
counsel submits that after completion of
investigation, a final report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed in favour of the
accused, who were declared innocent, but
after conducting further investigation, the
impugned charge sheet No. 160A of 2014
dated 14th July, 2014 has been filed against
Sachchidanand Rai and Guna Kesh Rai.

12. Mr. Mandeep Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel has argued that a reading of
impugned FIR would show that the
ingredients
to
constitute
the
alleged
offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 323, 504 and 506 IPC are not made
out,
therefore,
the
applicants
have
approached this Court to seek quashing of
the criminal proceedings, which is nothing,
but an abuse of the process of the law. He
prays that Application u/s 482 No. 2966 of
2017 be allowed and the impugned
criminal proceedings based upon the charge
sheet no. 160-A dated 14th July, 2014 be
set aside.

13. In response, Mr. Sushil Kumar
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the opposite party no. 2-complainant has
argued that, even if, it is a civil dispute
between the parties, but the accused
resorted to the violence, who alongwith
their companions entered the premises of
the
complainant's
company
and
misbehaved with the staff and extended
threats, so the criminal case can also
proceed simultaneously. In this regard,
learned counsel has produced the statement
of Dr. Arpita Sinha, Junior Manager of
"Party No. I" and pointed out that the
accused misbehaved with her and asked
about the whereabouts of Director(s) of the
company "Party No. I" in order to forcibly
recover the money from them. He submits
that the final report filed earlier in favour of
the accused was not based upon the proper
investigation, therefore, the Magistrate had
directed further investigation, and finally,
the charge sheet against the accused has
been filed. He prays that Application u/s
482 No. 2966 of 2017 be dismissed.

14. Learned State Counsel has
argued that the two FIR(s) are based upon
two different occurrences and the dispute
originally between the parties started for
breach of contract, but both the sides have
shown aggression against each other, and
since, all these offences are cognizable,
therefore, the respective FIR(s) were
registered. Learned State Counsel submits
that after thorough investigation, the
evidences in respect of the two occurrences
were collected, whereupon both the sides
have been sent to face trial, separately. He
submits that these cases involve the
disputed facts, which can be effectively
ascertained only on the basis of the
evidence, therefore, he prays that both the
applications be dismissed.

15. After hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and considering their
submissions, this Court finds that as far as
the business relations between the two
companies "Party No. I and Party No. II"
are concerned, the same is not disputed,
which is based upon a written agreement.
For this commercial dispute, both rival
parties have levelled allegations each other
and have claimed to have suffered losses,
but concededly, the parties have already
reached before the civil court, who have
filed their respective civil suits either
seeking rendition of accounts or recovery
1 All. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
579
of money. As far as the rights arising from
the written contract between the two
companies are concerned, the same would
be determined by the civil court and during
the course of hearing, it is also fairly stated
by learned counsels for both the parties that
the first suit instituted by "Party No. I"
pending before the Commercial Court at
Lucknow has reached at an advanced stage,
as both sides have adduced their respective
evidence.

16. Similarly, out of two suits
instituted by "Party No. II" at Delhi,
proceedings only in one suit are going on,
whereas the other one has been stayed and
their claim for recovery against "Party No.
I" would be also adjudicated upon by the
Civil Court.

17. Now, while reverting to the
written complaint dated 3rd April, 2010
given by complainant Guna Kesh Rai, this
Court finds that it only narrates the
placement of work order by "Party No. I"
in favour of "Party No. II" and defines the
value of the contract as well as the
outstanding debt amount. The allegations
regarding extending threats are apparently
vague, and even, the place of occurrence is
not disclosed. The complainant only made
a prayer for appropriate action, but in the
considered opinion of this Court in the
absence of any specific threats amounting
to
criminal
intimidation,
the
alleged
offences punishable under Sections 504 and
506 would not be even prima facie made
out.

18. Similarly, the ingredients to
constitute the offence punishable under
Section 406 IPC are also absent, as it is not
a case of any voluntary entrustment by
complainant Guna Kesh Rai to the accused
persons. Merely because, the parties are
having a civil dispute, and according to
complainant, some amount is outstanding
and the non-payment of the said amount, at
least, would not constitute the offence
punishable under Section 406 IPC. The
definition of "criminal breach of trust" as
contained in Section 405 IPC reads as
under:-

"405. Criminal breach of
trust.?
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"."

19. A reading of the above makes
it absolutely clear that neither there is any
entrustment by the complainant or the firm
"Party
No.
II",
nor
there
is
any
misappropriation by "Party No. I" or its
Director(s) resulting in breach of trust,
therefore, the prosecution of the applicants
in Application u/s 482 No. 724 of 2012 is
unjustified and the continuation of the
criminal proceedings against them deserve
to be set aside.

20. Now, while analyzing the other
complaint dated 3rd April, 2010 by Dr.
Rajesh Kumar Singh submitted before the
police against the Director(s) of "Party No.
II", this Court finds that mainly the
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant has raised his grievance
regarding non-completion of the contract
awarded in favour of the accused and a
consequent loss suffered by him. Since, the
complainant himself has filed a suit for
rendition of accounts, which has already
reached at the final stage, this Court finds
that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the Director(s) of
"Party No. II" is also not proper,
particularly when the complainant has not
made any allegation regarding criminal
intimidation.

21. Most importantly, a perusal of
the complaint dated 3rd April, 2010 would
show that the complainant has alleged only
misbehaviour by the accused and the same
cannot be construed as an intimidation to
the victim, because discourtesy or improper
behaviour may give a feeling of insult to a
victim, but it would not strictly constitute
the offences punishable under Sections 504
or 506 IPC. The statement of Dr. Arpita
Sinha, Junior Manager recorded after four
years of the complaint is also lacking in
material particulars, and is not specific,
therefore, the same cannot be given
credence for prosecution of the Director(s)
of "Party No. II".

22. At this juncture, reliance can
be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand
and
others,
passed
in
Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2012,
wherein while examining a similar issue in
the context of exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble
Apex
Court
made
the
following
observations:-

"7. While exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code the High Court has to be
cautious. This power is to be used
sparingly and only for the purpose
of preventing abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure
ends
of
justice.
Whether
a
complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the
nature of facts alleged therein.
Whether essential ingredients of
criminal offence are present or not
has to be judged by the High Court.
A
complaint
disclosing
civil
transactions may also have a
criminal texture. But the High
Court must see whether a dispute
which is essentially of a civil nature
is given a cloak of criminal offence.
In such a situation, if a civil remedy
is available and is, in fact, adopted
as has happened in this case, the
High Court should not hesitate to
quash criminal proceedings to
prevent abuse of process of court."

23. In Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
and another vs. State of Kerala & Ors
reported in 2015 (8) SCC 293, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court examined the abuse of
process of law in the context of civil
disputes between the parties and made the
following observartions:-

"9. It is true that a given set
of facts may make out a civil wrong
as also a criminal offence and only
because a civil remedy may be
available to the complainant that
itself cannot be a ground to quash a
criminal proceeding. The real test
is whether the allegations in the
complaint disclose the criminal
offence of cheating or not. In the
present case there is nothing to
show that at the very inception
there was any intention on behalf of
1 All. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
581
the accused persons to cheat which
is a condition precedent for an
offence under Section 420 IPC. In
our view the complaint does not
disclose any criminal offence at all.
Criminal proceedings should not be
encouraged when it is found to be
malafide or otherwise an abuse of
the process of the court. Superior
courts while exercising this power
should also strive to serve the ends
of justice. 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 the High Court
committed an error in refusing to
exercise the power under Section
482 Criminal Procedure Code to
quash the proceedings."

24. Further, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in State of Haryana and others v.
Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR
(Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp(1) Supreme
Court Cases 335, had laid down the
principles and guidelines for exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced below :-

"The following categories
of cases can be stated by way of
illustration
wherein
the
extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482, Cr.P.C., 1973 can be
exercised by the High Court either
to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any
precise,
clearly
defined
and
sufficiently
channelised
and
inflexible
guidelines
or
rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be
exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations
made in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations
in the first information report and
other
materials,
if
any,
accompanying the FIR do not
disclose
a
cognizable
offence,
justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1)of the
Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3)
Where
the
uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same
do
not
disclose
the
commission of any offence and
make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations
in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a
Police Officer without an order of
Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations
made in the FIR or complaint are
so
absurd
and
inherently
improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a
just
conclusion
that
there
is
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted)to
the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there
is specific provision in the Code or
the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress
for
the
grievance of aggrieved party.
(7)
Where
a
criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted
with
an
ulterior
motive
for
wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.
We also give a note of
caution to the effect that the power
of quashing a criminal proceeding
should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that
the court will not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made
in the FIR or the complaint and
that the extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act
according to its whim or caprice."

25. Thus, in the considered opinion
of this Court, this case is also a fit case for
exercise of inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to avoid the misuse of law.

26.

Resultantly,
both
the
applications succeed and Charge Sheet No.
160/2010 dated 11th May, 2010 as well as
the cognizance order dated 24th June,
2010, arising out of Case Crime No.
241/2010, under Sections 406, 504 and 506
IPC, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow and
Charge Sheet No. 160A/2014 dated 14th
July, 2014 as well as the cognizance order
dated 04th September, 2014, arising out of
Case Crime No. 241A/2010, under Sections
147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police
Station Ghazipur, Lucknow, and the entire
proceedings arising therefrom, pending in
the Court of Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow, are ordered
to be quashed.

27. The applications are allowed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 582
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2440 of 2016

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Rajendra Prasa Mishra, Rakesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Devi Prasad Maurya

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure1973 - Section 482-Final report in
favour of the applicants-accused-allegations
relate to the forged compromise-got the said
land entered in their favour- but once the said
consolidation
proceedings
were
finally
adjudicated on the strength of the said
document- it does not appeal to prudence that
the complainant would not challenge the said
proceedings- inconsistency in their St.ments-trial
court has only referred to the St.ments of the