# Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 203
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-31
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 363 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kalavati-devi-kalavati-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52967
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 239 - Discharge , Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Section
420
-
Application
seeking
discharge
under
Section 239 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section
420 IPC - Mere act of certifying an
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affidavit does not constitute an offence of
cheating unless dishonest intention is
established.(Para -17,18)

(B) Criminal Law - Principle of Natural
Justice
-
Recording
of
reasons
is
mandatory - Reasons are the heartbeat of
every conclusion - Not only administrative
but also judicial order must be supported
by reasons, recorded in it - Non recording
of
reasons,
non
consideration
of
admissible evidence or consideration of
inadmissible evidence renders the order to
be unsustainable - Failure to give reasons
amounts to denial of justice - If the decision
reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx',
it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible
for the Courts to perform their appellate
function or exercise the power of judicial review
in adjudging the validity of the decision.(Para -
20,29,32,33)

Application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. - seeking
discharge - ground - no fraudulent intent -
Magistrate rejected discharge application -
holding - prima facie evidence to frame charges
- criminal revision - dismissed - Magistrate and
Revisional Court failed to consider case facts
and law properly - didn't provide reasons for
concluding that applicant is not liable - courts
overlooked essential ingredients of Section 420
IPC (cheating) and relevant Supreme Court
judgments - hence application.(Para - 2 to 18)

HELD:- Impugned orders of the Magistrate and
the Revisional Court set aside.Matter remanded
back to the Magistrate to reconsider the
applicant's request for discharge. (Para - 34,35)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,594 of 101,601. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39594 for what follows._

1 All. Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
203
basis of the evidence on record was that the
guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion
was possible."

27. Thus, it is beyond the pale of
doubt that the scope of interference by an
appellate Court for reversing the judgment
of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in
favour of the accused has to be exercised
within the four corners of the following
principles:-

a) That the judgment of acquittal
suffers from patent perversity;

b) That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record;

c) That no two reikeasonable
views are possible and only the view
consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on
record.

28. The appellate Court, in order to
interfere with the judgment of acquittal
would have to record pertinent findings on
the above factors if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the
trial Court.

29. In the light of above settled
proposition of law moreso in view of the
fact that the criminal appeal under Section
372 Cr.P.C. filed by the first informant, has
already been rejected by coordinate bench
of this Court vide Judgment and order
dated 5.4.2024, which has not further been
challenged before higher court and has
become final and going through the
impugned Judgment, we find that the trial
court had given cogent and convincing
reasons for recording the finding of
acquittal
against
the
accused-opposite
parties and that the acquittal of the accusedopposite parties is plausible and justifiable
view emanating from the discussion of the
evidence available on record and does not
suffer from any infirmity or perversity.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
impugned judgement and order passed by
the trial court is just, proper and legal and
do not call for any interference by this
Court.

30. Accordingly, the prayer to grant
leave to appeal is refused. The Govt.
Appeal is also accordingly dismissed.

31. Let a certified copy of this
judgment and order be forwarded to the
court concerned for information and
necessary compliance alongwith the trial
court record.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 203
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 363 of 2025

Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sharad Pathak, Gaurav Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 239 - Discharge , Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Section
420
-
Application
seeking
discharge
under
Section 239 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section
420 IPC - Mere act of certifying an
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affidavit does not constitute an offence of
cheating unless dishonest intention is
established.(Para -17,18)

(B) Criminal Law - Principle of Natural
Justice
-
Recording
of
reasons
is
mandatory - Reasons are the heartbeat of
every conclusion - Not only administrative
but also judicial order must be supported
by reasons, recorded in it - Non recording
of
reasons,
non
consideration
of
admissible evidence or consideration of
inadmissible evidence renders the order to
be unsustainable - Failure to give reasons
amounts to denial of justice - If the decision
reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx',
it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible
for the Courts to perform their appellate
function or exercise the power of judicial review
in adjudging the validity of the decision.(Para -
20,29,32,33)

Application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. - seeking
discharge - ground - no fraudulent intent -
Magistrate rejected discharge application -
holding - prima facie evidence to frame charges
- criminal revision - dismissed - Magistrate and
Revisional Court failed to consider case facts
and law properly - didn't provide reasons for
concluding that applicant is not liable - courts
overlooked essential ingredients of Section 420
IPC (cheating) and relevant Supreme Court
judgments - hence application.(Para - 2 to 18)

HELD:- Impugned orders of the Magistrate and
the Revisional Court set aside.Matter remanded
back to the Magistrate to reconsider the
applicant's request for discharge. (Para - 34,35)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Anil Kumar Bose Vs St. of Bihar, (1974) 4
SCC 616
2. Mohd. Ibrahim Vs St. of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC
751
3. Samir Sahay Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 14 SCC
233
4. R.K. Vijayasarathy Vs Sudha Seetharam,
(2019) 16 SCC 739
5. Deepak Gaba Vs St. of U.P., (2023) 3 SCC
423
6. Vipin Sahni Vs CBI, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 511
7. Ramandeep Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2024 SCC
OnLine All7500
8. Jit Vinayak Arolkar Vs St. of Goa, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 31
9. Breen Vs Amalgamated Engg. Union, 1971(1)
AIIER 1148
10. Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs
Crabtress, 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC)
11. U.O.I. Vs Mohan Lal Kapoor, (1973) 2 SCC
836
12. Uma Charan Vs St. of M.P. & anr., AIR 1981
SC 1915 S.N.
13. Mukherjee Vs U.O.I., AIR 1990 SC 1984
14. Raj Kishore Jha Vs St. of Bihar & ors.,
(2003) 11 SCC 519
15. St. of Orissa Vs Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5
SCC 568
16. Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs Burn
Standard Co. Ltd. & ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181
17. St. of Raj. Vs Rajendra Prasad Jain,
(2008)15 SSC 711
18. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs Masood
Ahmed Khan & ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496
19. C.C.I. Vs S.A.I.L. & anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26
20. The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial
Vs Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors.,
JT 2010(2)SC 566
21. Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner
of Customs, New Delhi , 2011(269)E.L.T. 433
(S.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak and Sri
Gaurav Shukla, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Alok Kumar Tiwari,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.
1 All. Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
205

2. The present application has been
filed seeking following main relief(s):-

I.
Impugned
order
dated
23.11.2024, passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Barabanki (Court
No.5), in Criminal Revision No.94/2023,
contained in Annexure No. 1 to this
petition;

II. Impugned order 15.03.2023,
passed
by
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Barabanki (Room No.25), on
Case Crime No.186/2020, under Section
420 Indian Penal Code, Police Station
Dariyabad, District Barabanki, contained
in Annexure No.2 to this petition. The
application for discharge filed by the
Petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. may
be allowed and the Petitioner may be
discharged in proceedings at Case Crime
No.186/2020, under Section 420 Indian
Penal Code, at Police Station Dariayabad,
District Barabanki.

3.
Vide
impugned
order
dated
15.03.2023 passed in the case registered as
CNR No. UPBB 040149722021 (State
Versus Kalawati and Others), arising out of
Crime No. 186 of 2020 under Sections 420
IPC, Police Station Dariabad, District
Barabanki, the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Room No.4, Barabanki (in
short 'Magistrate'), rejected the application
of the applicant seeking discharge preferred
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The order dated
15.03.2023 is extracted hereinunder:-

"पत्र वली पेश हुई। पुक र कर यी गयी।

दवद्व न सह यक अदभयोजन अदधक री व अदभयुक्त
के दवद्व न अदधवक्त उपदस्थत है।

पत्र व ली व स्ते दनस्त रण प्र थथन -पत्र अन्तगथत ध र -
239 िां०प्र०सां० हेतु दनयत है।

अदभयुक्त कल वती की ओर से इस आशय क
प्र थथन पत्र दिय गय है दक उपरोक्त मुकिम व दिनी व 6 अन्य
लोगों के दवरुद्ध व िी ने अन्तगथत ध र 409 भ ०िां०सां० क िजथ
कर य थ दजसमें दववेचक ने अन्य प ांच न मजि अदभयुक्तों के न म
दनक लते हुए व दिनी व अन्य गैर न मजि अदभयुक्त चन्र प्रक श
दवश्वकम थ के दवरुद्ध आरोप पत्र ध र 409 भ ०िां०सां० को दनक लते
हुए ध र 420 भ ०िां०सां० प्रस्तुत दकय । उक्त म मले में प्र दथथनी के
दवरुद्ध यह आरोप लग ये गये हैं दक प्र दथथनी के ग्र म प्रध न रहते हुए
अन्य सह अदभयुक्त चन्र प्रक श दवश्वकम थ के न म प्रध नमांत्री
आव स योजन के अन्तगथत आवांदटत कर दिय गय जब दक
ल भ थी चन्र प्रक श दवश्वकम थ के प स दकसी अन्य ग ांव में पक्क
मक न है जो प्रध नमांत्री आव स योजन हेतु प त्र नहीं थ । ज नक री
होने पर सांबांदधत अदधक ररयों द्व र ज ांच करने पर ल भ थी को
अप त्र प ये ज ने पर उसको भुगत न की गयी प्रध नमांत्री योजन की
समस्त धनर दश सरक र के ख ते में दिर से व पस कर ली गयी।
प्र दथथनी केवल ग्र म प्रध न थी। प्रध नमांत्री आव स योजन के तहत
स री दलख पढी व ज ांच क यथव ही तथ अदभलेखों के रख रख व
आदि की सम्पूणथ दजम्मेि री ग्र म दवक स अदधक री, सह यक
दवक स अदधक री आदि अदधक ररयों की होती है। प्र दथथनी द्व र उक्त
म मले में केवल ल भ थी क शपथ पत्र प्रम दणत कर िेने के अल व
अन्य कोई भूदमक नहीं है। प्र दथथनी द्व र बहैदसयत ग्र म प्रध न
ल भ थी क प्रम ण पत्र प्रम दणत कर िेने से प्र दथथनी के दवरुद्ध
अपर ध नहीं बनत है। उक्त म मले में प्र दथथनी की प्रदतष्ठ धूदमल
करने के दलए प्र दथथनी के दवरुद्ध दववेचक से दमलकर गलत आरोप
पत्र ि दखल कर य गय है जब दक प्र दथथनी के दवरूद्ध ध र 420
भ ०िां०सां० क कोई अपर ध नहीं बनत है। क्योंदक प्र दथथनी ने दकसी
के स थ कोई धोख धडी नहीं की है।

दवद्व न सह यक अदभयोजन अदधक री के द्व र प्र थथन
पत्र क दवरोध करते हुए कथन दकय गय है दक थ न िररय ब ि के
मु०अ०सां० 186/2020 ध र 420 भ ०िां०सां० के अन्तगथत
कल वती के दवरुद्ध आरोप पत्र म ० न्य य लय में प्रेदित दकय ज
चुक है। दिन ांक 16-7-2021 को म ० न्य य लय द्व र कल वती
के दवरुद्ध प्रसांज्ञ न दलय ज चुक है। अदभयुक्त के दवरुद्ध अपर ध
के प्रपदि स क्ष्य पत्र वली पर मौजूि है।

सुन एवां पत्र वली क अवलोकन दकय । अवलोकन
से स्पष्ट है दक प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में सांज्ञ न दलय ज चुक है एवां सांज्ञ न
दलये ज ने के ब ि कोई अदतररक्त स क्ष्य पत्र वली पर आय नहीं है।
अदभयुक्त द्व र अपने दडस्च जथ प्र थथन पत्र के म ध्यम से जो भी कथन
दकय य है यह मेररट क दविय है, दजसे च जथ के स्तर पर नहीं िेख
ज सकत है। च जथ के स्तर पर दसिथ अदभयोजन िस्त वेज
(Prosecution paper) को िेखने हैं, दजससे प्रथम दृष्टय
म मल अदभयुक्त के दवरूद्ध बनत प्रतीत हो रह है दजसके क रण
सांज्ञ न दलय गय है। च जथ बन ने के दलए प्रथम दृष्टय स क्ष्य
पत्र वली पर मौजूि है। इस सांबांध में म ननीय उच्चतम न्य य लय द्व र
प्रदतप दित दवदध व्यवस्थ ओां क अवलोकन करन समीचीन होग ।
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

म ननीय उच्चतम न्य य लय द्व र भ रत प ररक बन म
सी०बी०आई 2008 सी०आर०एल०जे० 3540, एस० सी०
रुकमदण नखेकर बन म दवजय सतरिेकर ए०आई० आर 02009
एस०सी० 1013 एवां म ननीय उच्च न्य य लय इल ह ब ि द्व र
सदचन सक्सेन उिथ लकी बन म स्टेट आि उ०प्र० 2008 (62)
ए०सी०सी० 454 में यह अदभदनध थररत दकय गय है दक दवच रण
न्य य लय आरोप के समय केवल पुदलस ररपोटथ एवां िस्त वेजों क
अवलोकन करेंगी। अदभयुक्त क एकम त्र अदधक र उसको सुने ज ने
क है।

म ननीय उच्चतम न्य य लय द्व र तदमलन डू र ज्य
बन म एन० सुरेश र जन 2014 (84) ए०सी०सी० 656 में
अदभदनध थररत दकय गय है दक आरोप दवरचन/उन्मोचन के समय
वह अवध रण की ज नी च दहये दक अदभयोजन द्व र प्रस्तुत तथ्य
सत्य है।

उपरोक्त तथ्यों एवां पररदस्थदतयों व म ननीय उच्चतम न्य य लय द्व र
प्रदतप दित दवदध व्यवस्थ ओां के दृदष्टगत प्र दथथनी/अदभयुक्त क
प्र थथन पत्र अन्तगथत ध र 239 ि०प्र०सां० दनरस्त दकये ज ने योग्य
है।
आदेश

अदभयुक्त कल वती के द्व र प्र थथन पत्र अन्तगथत
ध र 239 ि०प्र०सां० दनरस्त दकय ज त है। पत्र वली आरोप
दवरचन हेतु दिन ांक 15/4/23 को पेश हो।"

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated
15.03.2023 passed by the Magistrate, the
applicant filed the revision registered as
CNR No. UPBB010046682023.

5.
The
Additional
District
and
Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Barabanki (in
short 'Revisional Court') vide impugned
order dated 23.11.2024 dismissed the
revision
and
affirmed
the
order
of
Magistrate dated 15.03.2023. The relevant
portion of order dated 23.11.2024 reads as
under:-

"6- उभय पक्ष को सुनने तथ मूल एवां दनगर नी
पत्र वली क सम्यक पररशीलन करने से स्पष्ट होत है दक व िी
मुकिम बलिेव दसांह द्व र दनगर नीकती कल वती एवां प ांच अन्य
व्यदक्तयों के दवरुद्ध थ न िररय ब ि, दजल ब र बांकी पर प्रथम
सूचन ररपोटथ सांख्य 186/2020 अन्तगथत ध र 409 भ ०िां०सां०
िजथ कर यी गयी, दजसमे दववेचन के पश्च त दववेचक द्व र
दनगर नीकती कल वती पत्नी र मिेव वम थ एवां चन्रप्रक श दवश्वकम थ
के दवरुद्ध आरोप पत्र दिन ांदकत 01.03.2021 अन्तगथत ध र
420 भ ०िां०सां० न्य य लय में प्रस्तुत दकय गय । उपरोक्त आरोप
पत्र पर दवद्व न अवर न्य य लय द्व र दिन ांक 16.07.2021 को
प्रसांज्ञ न दलय गय तत्पश्व त अदभयुक्त कल वती की ओर से प्र थथन
पत्र अन्तगथत ध र 239 िां०प्र०सां० न्य य लय के समक्ष इस आशय
क प्रस्तुत दकय गय दक उपरोक्त मुकिम अदभयुक्त व अन्य लोगों
के दवरुद्ध व िी द्व र अन्तगथत ध र 409 भ ०िां०सां० िजथ कर य
गय थ , दजसमें दववेचक ने अन्य प ांच न मजि अदभयुक्तों क न म
दनक लते हुए अदभयुक्त कल वती व अन्य गैर न मजि अदभयुक्त
चन्र प्रक श दवश्व कम थ के दवरुद्ध आरोप पत्र अन्तगथत ध र 420
भ ०िां०सां० प्रस्तुत दकय गय । उक्त म मले में प्र दथथनी के दवरुद्ध यह
आरोप लग य गय है दक उसने ग्र म प्रध न रहते हुए सहअदभयुक्त
चन्र प्रक श दवश्वकम थ के न म प्रध नमांत्री आव स योजन के अन्तगथत
गलत तौर पर आव स आवांदटत कर दिय । जबदक ल भ थी
चन्रप्रक श दवश्वकम थ के प स दकसी अन्य ग ांव में पक्क मक न है
तथ वह प्रध नमांत्री आव स योजन हेतु प त्र व्यदक्त नहीं थ , इस
तथ्य की ज नक री होने पर सांबांदधत अदधक ररयों द्व र ज ांच करने पर
ल भ थी को अप त्र प ये ज ने पर उसको भुगत न की गयी प्रध नमांत्री
आव स योजन की समस्त धनर दश सरक र के ख ते में दिर से
व पस कर ली गयी। प्र दथथनी केवल ग्र म प्रध न थी, प्रध नमांत्री
आव स योजन के तहत स री दलख पढी, ज ांच, क यथव ही तथ
अदभलेखों के रख-रख व की सम्पूणथ दजम्मेि री ग्र म दवक स
अदधक री, सह यक दवक स अदधक री आदि की होती है, प्र दथथनी
की भूदमक उपरोक्त म मले में म त्र ल भ थी क शपथ पत्र प्रम दणत
कर िेने की है, अतः प्र दथथनी के दवरुद्ध ध र 420 भ ०िां०सां० के
अन्तगथत कोई अपर ध नहीं बनत है। उक्त म मले में म त्र प्र दथथनी की
प्रदतष्ठ धूदमल करने के दलए व िी ने दववेचक से दमलकर गलत
आरोप पत्र ि दखल कर य है। प्र दथथनी ने दकसी के स थ कोई
धोख धडी नहीं की है। दवद्व न अवर न्य य लय द्व र उभय पक्ष को
सुनने के पश्च त इस आध र पर अदभयुक्त क उन्मोचन प्र थथन पत्र
आिेश दिन ांदकत 15.03.2023 के द्व र दनरस्त कर दिय दक
प्रकरण में सांज्ञ न दलय ज चुक है तथ सांज्ञ न दलये ज ने के ब ि
कोई अदतररक्त स क्ष्य पत्र वली पर नहीं आय है। अदभयुक्त द्व र
अपने उन्मोचन प्र थथन पत्र में जो भी कथन दकय गय है, वह मेररट
क दविय है, दजसे च जथ के स्तर पर नहीं िेख ज सकत च जथ के
स्तर पर दसिथ अदभयोजन िस्त वेज िेख ज न है, दजनसे प्रथम
दृष्टय म मल अदभयुक्त के दवरुद्ध बनत प्रतीत हो रह है। च जथ
बन ने के दलए प्रथम दृष्टय स क्ष्य पत्र वली पर मौजूि हैं। दवद्व न
अवर न्य य लय द्व र अपने आिेश में म ननीय उच्चतम न्य य लय
की दवदध व्यवस्थ भ रत प ररख बन म सी०बी०आई० 2008
1 All. Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
207
सी०आर० एल० जे० 3540 सुप्रीम कोटथ एवां म ननीय उच्च
न्य य लय इल ह ब ि की दवदध व्यवस्थ सदचन सक्सेन उिथ लकी
बन म उिर प्रिेश र ज्य 2008 (62) ए०सी०सी० 454 क
उल्लेख दकय गय है, दजसमें यह अदभदनध थररत दकय गय है दक
दवच रण न्य य लय आरोप के समय केवल पुदलस ररपोटथ एवां
िस्त वेजों क अवलोकन करेगी, अदभयुक्त क एकम त्र अदधक र
उसको सुने ज ने क है। अवर न्य य लय के उपरोक्त आिेश से क्षुब्ध
होकर यह आपर दधक दनगर नी, दनगर नीकती कल वती द्व र प्रस्तुत
की गयी है।

7- दनगर नी में दनगर नीकती द्व र मुख्य रूप से यह
आध र दलय गय है दक दवद्व न अवर न्य य लय द्व र इस तथ्य पर
दवच र नहीं दकय गय है दक दनगर नीकती द्व र बतौर प्रध न
ल भ थी चन्रप्रक श द्व र दलये गए इस आशय क शपथ पत्र दक
उसके प स कोई पक्क मक न नहीं है, को ल भ थी पर दवश्व स
करके केवल प्रम दणत दकय गय थ । दनगर नीकती के ग ांव में
ल भ थी क कोई मक न नहीं थ तथ अन्य ग ांव में उसक आव स
होने की ज नक री दनगर नीकती को नहीं थी, इसदलए ल भ थी के
शपथ पत्र को प्रम दणत करते हुए अग्रस ररत दकय गय थ ।
दनगर नीकती ने केवल ल भ थी के शपथ पत्र पर लगे उसके िोटो व
हस्त क्षर को प्रम दणत दकय थ । प्रध नमांत्री आव स योजन के
अन्तगथत स री दलख -पढी आदि ग्र म दवक स अदधक री व सह यक
दवक स अदधक री की होती है, ग्र म प्रध न की कोई भूदमक नहीं
होती है। उपरोक्त प्रकरण में सम्पूणथ धनर दश ल भ थी द्व र सरक री
खज ने में व पस कर िी गयी है, इस प्रक र दनगर नीकती द्व र ध र
420 भ ०िां०सां० के अन्तगथत कोई अपर ध क ररत नहीं दकय गय
है तथ अवर न्य य लय द्व र दवदध दवरुद्ध तरीके से दनगर नीकती क
उन्मोचन प्र थथन पत्र दनरस्त दकय गय है। अपने तको के समथथन में
दनगर नीकती के दवद्व न अदधवक्त की ओर से म ननीय उच्चतम
न्य य लय की दवदध व्यवस्थ िीपक ग ब एवां अन्य बन म उिर
प्रिेश र ज्य एवां अन्य 2023 ए०आई०आर० सुप्रीम कोटथ 2028
प्रस्तुत की गयी है, दजसमें म ननीय न्य य लय द्व र यह ध ररत दकय
गय है दक ध र 415 भ ०िां०सां० के अन्तगथत धोख धडी क
अपर ध बनने के दलए दकसी व्यदक्त को प्रेररत दकय ज न च दहए,
च हे छल पूवथक य बेईम नी से त दक वह दकसी व्यदक्त को कोई
व्यदक्त को सम्पदि पररिि करे य उस व्यदक्त को सम्पदि अपने प स
रखने के दलए सहमदत िे। इसी प्रक र एक अन्य दवदध व्यवस्थ
मररयम िसीहउद्दीन एवां अन्य बन म र ज्य एवां अन्य 2024
ए०आई०आर० सुप्रीम कोटथ 801 प्रस्तुत दकय गय है, दजसमें
म ननीय न्य य लय द्व र यह ध ररत दकय गय है दक ध र 420
भ ०िां०सां० के प्र वध नों को आकृष्ट करने के क्रम में अदभयोजन को
न केवल यह स दबत करन होग दक अदभयुक्त ने दकसी व्यदक्त के
स थ छल दकय बदल्क यह भी स दबत करन होग दक ऐस करके
उसने बेईम नी पूवथक दकसी व्यदक्त को ऐसे प्रेररत दकय दक वह ऐसे
छल के क रण सम्पदि क पररि न कर िे। दवद्व न अदधवक्त द्व र यह
तकथ दिय गय दक दनगर नीकती द्व र ऐस कोई क यथ नहीं दकय
गय है, अतः उसके द्व र ध र 420 भ ०िां०सां० क अपर ध
क ररत दकय ज न नहीं प य ज त है।

8- दनगर नीकत थ के दवद्व न अदधवक्त द्व र प्रस्तुत
तकों के प्रक श में आलोच्य आिेश दिन ांदकत-15.03.2023 एवां
मूल पत्र वली क पररशीलन करने से यह स्पष्ट होत है दक अदभयुक्त
क न म प्रथम सूचन ररपोटथ में िदशथत है। दववेचक द्व र दववेचन के
िौर न समस्त अदभलेखों क पररशीलन करने एवां अन्य गव हों के
बय न लेने के पश्च त सी०डी० पच थ नम्बर-18 में आरोपी स दलक
र म वम थ ग्र म दवक स अदधक री क बय न दलय गय है, दजसमें
उसने कह दक मुझे दवभ ग की तरि से पररदनांि प्रदवदष्ट क िण्ड
दिय ज है, चूांदक ग्र म प्रध न क हस्त क्षर शपथ पत्र पर होने के
क रण हमने प त्र समझ दलय थ , क्योंदक यह क यथ हम रे तथ ग्र म
प्रध न के द्व र होत है। इसी प्रक र आरोपी कल वती िेवी द्व र
अपने बय न में कह गय दक चन्रप्रक श द्व र पूरे यकीन के स थ
मुझे बत य गय तथ इस ब त क शपथ पत्र दिय गय दक मेरे प स
कोई पक्क मक न नहीं है, इसदलए इनकी ब त पर दवश्व स करके
हस्त क्षर बन दिय थ । चन्र प्रक श ने मुझे धोखे में रखकर हस्त क्षर
बनव य । ल भ थी/अदभयुक्त चन्र प्रक श द्व र अपने बय न में कह
गय है दक मैंने ग्र म प्रध न के कहने पर आव स न होने क शपथ
पत्र िे दिय थ , स हब मुझसे गलती हो गयी। उपरोक्त दववेचन के
पश्च त दववेचक द्व र ध र 409 भ ०िां०सां० के स्थ न पर दववेचन
ध र 420 भ ०िां०सां० के अन्तगथत की गयी तथ ब ि दववेचन
अन्तगथत ध र 420 भ ०िां०सां० अदभयुक्त कल वती एवां चन्र
प्रक श के दवरुद्ध आरोप पत्र प्रेदित दकय गय । म ननीय उच्चतम
न्य य लय द्व र प्रदतप दित दवदध व्यवस्थ मध्य प्रिेश र ज्य बन म
एस०बी०जौहरी एवां अन्य ए० आई०आर० 2000 सुप्रीम कोटथ
665 में यह अवध ररत दकय गय है दक "यह सुस्थ दपत दवदध है
दक आरोप दवरचन के स्तर पर न्य य लय यह िेखेगी दक क्य
अदभयुक्त के दवरुद्ध क यथव ही दकये ज ने क पय थप्त आध र है।
न्य य लय से यह अपेक्ष नहीं की ज ती दक वह स क्ष्यों की समीक्ष
करे और इस दनष्किथ पर पहुांचे दक प्रस्तुत दकये गए स क्ष्य अदभयुक्त
की िोिदसदद्ध के दलए पय थप्त है अथव नहीं, यदि न्य य लय सांतुष्ट है
दक अदग्रम क यथव ही दकये ज ने हेतु प्रथम दृष्टय म मल बन रह है,
तब आरोप दवरदचत दकय ज येग ।" अतः दवद्व न अवर न्य य लय
द्व र पुनरीक्षणकती के दवरुद्ध अदग्रम क यथव ही दकये ज ने क प्रथम
दृष्टय पय थप्त आध र प ते हुए उन्मोचन प्र थथन पत्र दनरस्त दकय गय
है, इस स्तर पर यह नहीं कह ज सकत दक पुनरीक्षणकती के दवरुद्ध
आरोप दवरदचत दकये ज ने हेतु प्रथम दृष्टय स क्ष्य पत्र वली पर
उपलब्ध नहीं है।
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9- अतः उपरोक्त दववेचन के पश्च त न्य य लय की
र य में दवद्व न अवर न्य य लय द्व र पत्र वली पर उपलब्ध स क्ष्यों क
सही मूल्य ांकन करते हुए आलोच्य आिेश प ररत दकय गय है,
दजसमें दकसी प्रक र के हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकत प्रतीत नहीं होती है।
तिनुस र यह आपर दधक दनगर नी सां० 94/2023 दनरस्त दकये
ज ने योग्य है तथ आलोच्य आिेश दिन ांदकत 15.03.2023 पुष्ट
दकये ज ने योग्य है।
आदेश

आपर दधक पुनरीक्षण सांख्य -94/2023, कल वती
बन म र ज्य दनरस्त की ज ती है। आलोच्य` आिेश दिन ांदकत
15.03.2023 पुष्ट दकय ज त है। इस आिेश की एक प्रदत मूल
पत्र वली के स थ अवर न्य य लय को अदवलम्ब प्रेदित हो। पक्षक र
अवर न्य य लय के समक्ष दिन ांक-10.12.2024 को अदग्रम
क यथव ही हेतु उपदस्थत हों।"

6. Impeaching the impugned order(s)
it is stated that the case of prosecution
against the applicant, in nutshell, is to the
effect that the applicant being Gram
Pradhan of Village Jethauti Kurmiyan,
District Barabanki verified the contents of
affidavit
of
one
Chandra
Prakash
Vishwakarma r/o Ranepur hamlet of
Village-Jethauti, Kurmiyan, Police StationDariyabad, District- Barabanki, which he
filed to get the benefit of the scheme
known as "Pradhanmantri Awas Yojna',
indicating therein that he has no 'iDdk
edku/Pakka Makan' i.e. 'Brick House' in the
Village, which in fact was correct as in
enquiry/investigation, it was found that
Chandra Prakash Vishwakarma is having a
house in Village Mathura Nagar and
considering these facts of the case the
applicant ought to have been discharged as
offence under Section 420 IPC against the
applicant is not made but without recording
reasons after considering the facts of the
case in the light of the law settled, the
Magistrate as also the Revisional Court
passed the impugned order(s) and being so
the same are liable to be interfered by this
Court.

7. In support of his submissions
reliance has been placed on the judgments
indicated hereinafter.

8. Referred paragraphs of judgment
passed in the case of Anil Kumar Bose v.
State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 616, are as
under:-

"11. For the purpose of holding
them guilty, the evidence adduced must
establish beyond reasonable doubt, mens
rea on their part. We will, therefore,
consider the case of each appellant from
that aspect. With regard to the Accountant,
Raghunath Prasad, the evidence relied
upon by the High Court for its conclusion
of guilt of this appellant may be Ext. 1 is
the Duty Chart of the Accountant. The first
item of this chart is 'sole in charge of
accounts
and
to
exercise
general
supervision on all staff working under him
for the efficient working of the Accounts
Section'. The third item of this Chart is To
complete the Bill Book and get it checked
and signed by the Dy. Superintendent'. I
must point out that this duty has not been
performed by the Accountant in the case of
these disputed bills. The fifth item of his
duty is To put up all salary bills prepared
by the dealing assistant dally before the
Superintendent. The Superintendent, PW 9
Dr Safdar Ali Khan has stated that the
Accountant is responsible for keeping the
Acquittance Roll in order It is stated in
para 21 that the Accountant should check
the bill and then place for signature of
higher officers. Of course, it is in evidence
that the Superintendent had asked the office
to place all bills for his signature in the
office on his table and no clerk should
stand there when he would sign on those
bills. This direction is clearly against item
No. 5 of the Duty Chart of the Accountant. I
do not know for what purpose he made this
1 All. Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
209
innovation in the procedure. But this
procedure
would
not
absolve
the
Accountant of his duty to check the pay
bills and other bills before sending them to
the Superintendent....

It is further interesting to note
that the disputed pay bills do not bear the
initial or signature of the Accountant below
the signaure of the Superintendent .... As
the evidence shows, the Accountant did not
purposely sign on these forged bills with a
view to get himself absolved of the
responsibility ...... As a matter of course,
the work of this Accountant was to get pay
bills prepared, check them and then put up
before the Superintendent for his signature
so that after obtaining his signature the bills
may
be
sent
to
the
treasury
for
encashment."12. On the above evidence at
the highest it was a failure on the part of
the Accountant to perform his duties or to
observe the rules of procedure laid down in
the Duty Chart in a proper manner and
may, therefore, be an administrative lapse
on his part about which we are not
required to pronounce any opinion in this
case. Without, however, anything more we
do not think it will be correct to impute to
this appellant a guilty intention which is
one of the essential ingredients of the
offence of cheating under Section 420IPC
Apart from this, the High Court is not
correct and indeed had no material to hold
that "the Accountant did not purposely sign
on these forged bills with a view to get
himself absolved of the responsibility". The
evidence of the Superintendent, which is
extracted above, runs counter to that
conclusion.

12. On the above evidence at the
highest it was a failure on the part of the
Accountant to perform his duties or to
observe the rules of procedure laid down in
the Duty Chart in a proper manner and
may, therefore, be an administrative lapse
on his part about which we are not
required to pronounce any opinion in this
case. Without, however, anything more we
do not think it will be correct to impute to
this appellant a guilty intention which is
one of the essential ingredients of the
offence of cheating under Section 420IPC
Apart from this, the High Court is not
correct and indeed had no material to hold
that "the Accountant did not purposely sign
on these forged bills with a view to get
himself absolved of the responsibility". The
evidence of the Superintendent, which is
extracted above, runs counter to that
conclusion.

13. With regard to the other
appellant, the Cashier Anil Kumar Bose we
may read what the High Court has relied
upon for its finding:

"Coming to the case of the
Cashier, I find that his Duty Chart is Ext.
1/1. His first duty is 'Daily receipt and
disbursement of cash. A note in this Duty
Chart shows To be solely responsible for
the performance of above duties.... The
Deputy Superintendent (PW 6) has stated
in para 8 of his deposition that it was the
duty of the Cashier to see that the payment
was made to the correct or right person. Of
course, in the Duty Chart it is not written in
so many words. But as his duty was to
disburse the money, this disbursement was
to be made in a bona fide manner, that is,
after due enquiry about the payee, if the
latter is not known to the Cashier. In case
of PW 5 one payment was made on the 5th
April for the month of March and the next
payment to a person of that name was
made on 10th April, that is, only after five
days. The Cashier ought to have detected
this if his case of bona fides is to be
accepted.

The argument advanced on his
behalf is that it was not possible for him to
know all the Housemen. It may be so, but
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he cannot be allowed to take shelter that he
paid the money without ascertaining who
was the real recipient. It was also the
practice to make the payment in presence
of the Deputy Superintendent and then to
take his initial below the seal, that is,
rubber stamp. In these disputed cases no
such signature was obtained of the Deputy
Superintendent, and there is no explanation
as to why this was not done. The Deputy
Superintendent has clearly stated that
against these disputed entries his signature
was not obtained and no rubber stamp
concerning the payment was affixed.... In
my opinion, therefore, the Cashier also
cannot claim to be absolved of the charge
against him. It was his duty to have seen
that the payment was made to the correct
person. It is not clear in evidence that these
payments were made in presence of the
Deputy Superintendent of the said Hospital.
The witnesses have spoken only about the
usual practice."

14. The learned Judge of the High
Court made a significant observation in the
following terms:

"I am constrained to remark that
both, the Superintendent and the Deputy
Superintendent have shown carelessness in
their duties and these things came to
happen because of the latitude which they
had given to these employees. Had the
Superintendent been careful to see whether
the signature of the Accountant was given
in the pay hills, he must have detected that
in the disputed pay bills there was no
signature of the Accountant, and that
should have aroused his suspicion about the
correctness of the pay bills."

15. Even on the finding of the
High Court, there was nothing in the Duty
Chart that the duty of the Cashier was to
see that the payment was made to the
correct or right person. There is further no
evidence that these three Doctors were
known to the Cashier. On the other hand,
the High Court has not absolutely repelled
the argument advanced on his behalf that it
was not possible for him to know all the
Housemen. The High Court has come to an
adverse conclusion against him on account
of his not properly "ascertaining who was
the real recipient" of the money before he
disbursed the same. The material before the
High Court together with the significant
observation against the Superintendent and
the Deputy Superintendent do make out a
case for giving benefit of reasonable doubt
to the Cashier as well. On the evidence
which the High Court has relied upon
against him, it is not possible to hold that
the requisite mens rea has been established
against this accused. As observed in the
case of the Accountant, it may be at the
highest a case of an error of judgment or
breach of performance of duty which, per
se, cannot be equated with dishonest
intention to establish the charge under
Section 420IPC In the result, the appeals
are allowed. The judgment of the High
Court so far as these two appellants are
concerned is set aside. The two appellants
herein are acquitted of the charge and shall
be discharged from their bail bonds."

9. Referred paragraphs of judgment
passed in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v.
State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, are as
under:-

"18. Let us now examine whether
the ingredients of an offence of cheating
are made out. The essential ingredients of
the offence of "cheating" are as follows:

(i) deception of a person either by
making
a
false
or
misleading
representation or by dishonest concealment
or by any other act or omission;

(ii)
fraudulent
or
dishonest
inducement of that person to either deliver
1 All. Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
211
any property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally
induce that person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived; and

(iii) such act or omission causing
or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or
property.

19. To constitute an offence under
Section 420, there should not only be
cheating, but as a consequence of such
cheating,
the
accused
should
have
dishonestly induced the person deceived

(i) to deliver any property to any
person, or

(ii) to make, alter or destroy
wholly or in part a valuable security (or
anything signed or sealed and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable
security).

20. When a sale deed is executed
conveying a property claiming ownership
thereto, it may be possible for the
purchaser under such sale deed to allege
that the vendor has cheated him by making
a false representation of ownership and
fraudulently induced him to part with the
sale consideration. But in this case the
complaint is not by the purchaser. On the
other hand, the purchaser is made a coaccused.

21. It is not the case of the
complainant that any of the accused tried
to deceive him either by making a false or
misleading representation or by any other
action or omission, nor is it his case that
they offered him any fraudulent or
dishonest
inducement
to deliver
any
property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally
induce him to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived. Nor did the complainant
allege that the first appellant pretended to
be the complainant while executing the sale
deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
first accused by the act of executing sale
deeds in favour of the second accused or
the second accused by reason of being the
purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth
accused, by reason of being the witness,
scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the
sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any
manner.

22. As the ingredients of cheating
as stated in Section 415 are not found, it
cannot be said that there was an offence
punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or
420 of the Code."

10. Referred paragraphs of judgment
passed in the case of Samir Sahay v. State
of U.P., (2018) 14 SCC 233, are as under:-

"8. The learned Senior Counsel
for the State submits that both in the first
information report as well as in the
statement made by the complainant under
Section 161 CrPC, it was alleged that false
assurance was given to the complainant to
deposit money. He submits that it is not
necessary that accused should be an
employee of Aneja Consultancy. There the
loss was caused to the complainant due to
the false assurance given by Major P.C.
Sahay (Retd.) and the appellant, who was
his son.

9. We have considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.

10.
The
copy
of
the
first
information report lodged by Respondent 2
against the appellant and his father is at
Annexure P-6 to the paper book. It will be
useful to reproduce the entire first
information report lodged by Respondent 2
which is as follows(as translated into
English):

'To,
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The S.H.O. Kotwali Fatehpur,
Janpat, Fatehpur

Sir,

It is requested that the applicant
Colonel R.K. Singh (Retired) is a r/o
Mohalla Nasirpur Lal Bahadur Shashtri
Marg,
City
Fatehpur,
P.S.
Kotwali
Fatehpur,
Janpat
Fatehpur.
In
City
Fatehpur in Mohalla Civil Lines of the
applicant an office was opened at I.T.I.
Road in the name of Aneja Group
Consultancy. Their people came to the
applicant and made him understand and
assured him if I or any person will deposit
money with their company, their company
will return the double amount after three
years but the applicant did not assure on
them.

(3) But in the month of June 1997
retired Major P.C. Sahay, r/o Lavrol
House, 145 Civil Lines, Fatehpur who was
known to the applicant being an army
personnel and a resident of the same
locality
contacted
the
applicant
and
assured him that he is the Regional
Manager of the said Company and
whatever amount the applicant will deposit
he will give the receipt of the same with his
signature. It was also assured that the
money of the applicant will not be lost this
and all responsibility will be on him. Along
with him his son Samir Sahay, Advocate
who was already acquainted with the
applicant also accompanied his father.
Major P.C. Sahay gave the abovesaid
assurance, and the applicant and his wife
Smt Uma Devi deposited rupees one lakh
with Major P.C. Sahay in this regard and
he gave the receipt of the same to the
applicant of which the applicant is
enclosing the photocopy. Like this Major
P.C. Sahay(Retired) has got deposited total
amount of Rs 86,000 from me and my wife.

(4) But after some days it came to
be known that the said company has run
away along with the lakhs of rupees of the
depositors after closing its office. I
personally went and found the office
closed.

(5) I met with Major P.C. Sahay
(retired) and his son Samir Sahay they
denied their responsibility and said that
due to loss the company has been closed.

(6) In this way the owner of
company
Aneja
Group
Major
P.C.
Sahay(Retired) Regional Manager and his
son Samir Sahay have committed forgery
by giving false assurance to the depositors
and caused loss to them on their deposited
amount earned profit illegally and have
committed the offence of conspiracy and
forgery.

(7) It is therefore prayed that
after registering the FIR appropriate legal
action may be taken against the abovesaid
persons. It has also come to knowledge that
goods worth about one lakh are kept in the
office of the company which have been
taken into his possession by the owner of
the shop (office). In this regard a list of the
property and goods given by flight
lieutenant
Nagendra
Vikram,
Senior
Branch Manager Aneja Group is enclosed.
Which may be attached so that some money
of the depositors be returned.

(8) Details of the receipts and
deposited amount."

11.
After
lodging
the
first
information report, Respondent 2 and his
wife had also filed Petition No. 318 of 1998
before the District Consumer Forum,
Fatehpur
against
Inderjeet
Aneja,
Proprietor of Aneja Consultancy, President
and Managing Director of Aneja Financial
Services
Ltd.
and
Aneja
Group
of
Companies. In the complaint filed before
the District Consumer Forum neither the
appellant nor his father was arrayed and
no allegation was made against the
appellant and his father in the complaint. It
1 All. Kalavati Devi @ Kalavati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
213
is also relevant to note that the said
complaint filed by Respondent 2 and his
wife ultimately was allowed by the District
Consumer Forum on 27-12-2006. The
District Consumer Forum directed the
amount as claimed to be paid within 15
days after receiving the copy of the order.

12. It is also relevant to note that
the appellant had also filed a complaint
being No. 111 of 1999 along with his wife,
son, father and other family members
alleging that the applicants had deposited
an amount of Rs 3,49,415 in the Company
which has not been returned back. The
District Consumer Forum allowed the
complaint filed by the appellant vide order
dated 16-8-2001 directing payment with
interest @ 9% per annum.

13. In the statement made before
the police under Section 161 CrPC both
Respondent 2 and his wife have repeated
the same allegations which were made in
the
first
information
report.
In
the
statement which has been brought on
record
under
Section
161
CrPC,
Respondent 2 and his wife had alleged that
Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.) who was known
to Respondent 2 contacted Respondent 2
and assured him that if any amount was
deposited with the Company, he would take
the entire responsibility. It was further
stated that the appellant accompanied his
father Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.) who was
known to Respondent 2.

14. The application was filed by
the appellant seeking discharge on the
ground that there is no evidence to frame
charge under Section 420 IPC. The learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate while rejecting
the application filed by the appellant for
discharge has observed that on the
assurance of both Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.)
and the appellant, the complainant and his
wife deposited Rs 86,000. The learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate has given the
following
reasons
for
rejecting
the
application:

"It has been clearly mentioned in
the FIR that after the assurance of
deceased P.C. Sahay and his son Samir
Sahay the money was invested in the
Company. As well as it has also been
mentioned that accused Samir Sahay was
receiving commission from the Company
after perusing all the evidence in the file as
per law there is proof to frame allegation
against accused Samir Sahay."

15. The order passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate was challenged. The
High Court by brief order has dismissed
the revision observing that the counsel for
the revisionist could not point out any
manifest error or otherwise illegality so as
to warrant interference.

16. Before we proceed further to
examine the contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties, it is necessary to
notice the ingredients for establishing a
charge under Section 420 IPC. Section 415
IPC defines "cheating" which is to the
following effect: