# Kamlesh Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 15
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-27
- **Case number:** SHAMSHERY J. Application U/S 482 No. 14659 of 2024
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamlesh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52123
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code1860-Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471-
After a period of more than a decade it has
been alleged that applicant was not
empowered to execute the power of
attorney and it was a piece of fraud and
forgery-There is a growing tendency to
conduct purely civil dispute into criminal
cases, there is an impression that if a
person could somehow be entangled in a
criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood
of imminent settlement-Dispute between
parties of civil nature-Ingredients of
offences levelled not made out- ResultEntire proceedings quashed-Application
U/s 482 CrPC allowed.(Para 2, 3, 8, 9, 13,
14) (E-15)

List of Cases referred-
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

6 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
15
Court and observed that the matter should
be decided by the High Court after
application of mind and by passing a
reasoned order. Unfortunately, in the
impugned order, there are no reasons and
the merits have not been considered at all.

6. Hence, the appeal is allowed.
The order of the High Court is set aside
and the matter is remitted back to the High
Court. The High Court will decide the
matter on merits. Since the matter is very
old, we request the High Court to decide it
as early as possible preferably within a
period of four months."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant,
thus, submits that in view of the ration laid
down by Hon'ble Apex
Court,
the
impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is liable
to be set aside.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State could
not dispute the above submissions as
advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant.

8. A perusal of the impugned order
dated
05.03.2024
does
not
reflect
consideration of case on merits by which
criminal revision preferred by applicant has
been dismissed in default by the revisional
court. Thus, this Court, in agreement with
the observations made in the aforesaid
judgments cited above, thinks it appropriate
to set aside the impugned order herein.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated
05.03.2024
passed
by
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge
(F.T.C.),
Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No.
414/2023-1190/2023 (Aman Sinha Vs.
Ankit Tandan and others) is hereby set
aside and the matter is remanded before the
concerned revisional court for passing fresh
orders.

10. With the above observations/
directions the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 15
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY J.

Application U/S 482 No. 14659 of 2024

Kamlesh Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Shreyas Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Surya Pratap Singh Prmar, Ved
Prakash Dwivedi

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code1860-Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471-
After a period of more than a decade it has
been alleged that applicant was not
empowered to execute the power of
attorney and it was a piece of fraud and
forgery-There is a growing tendency to
conduct purely civil dispute into criminal
cases, there is an impression that if a
person could somehow be entangled in a
criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood
of imminent settlement-Dispute between
parties of civil nature-Ingredients of
offences levelled not made out- ResultEntire proceedings quashed-Application
U/s 482 CrPC allowed.(Para 2, 3, 8, 9, 13,
14) (E-15)

List of Cases referred-
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. A.M. Mohan Vs State Represented by SHO &
anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339

2. G. Sagar Suri Vs St. of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636

3. Naresh Kumar & anr. Vs The St. of Karn. &
anr., 2024 INSC 196

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1.

Applicant-Kamlesh
Singh
(accused) and Complainant-Ishwar Singh
(Opposite Party No. 4) are resident of
Mumbai. The matter pertains to properties
situated in District Mainpuri, details of
which are mentioned in para 8 of present
application.

2 . The case is further arising out of a
registered power of attorney purportedly
executed by accused in favour of one, Shiv
Ram Mishra in the year 2008. After a
period of more than a decade it has now
been alleged that applicant was not
empowered to execute the said power of
attorney and it was a piece of fraud and
forgery.

3. It is not in dispute that after
execution of power of attorney there were
civil proceedings between applicant and
Opposite Party No. 4 (Complainant) that a
suit for perpetual injunction being Original
Suit No. 171 of 2012 (Ishwar Singh Vs.
Kamlesh Singh and others) was filed
wherein on basis of a compromise, the suit
was withdrawn though now it has been
contended that referred compromise was
entered by a person not empowered to do
so. However, it is not in dispute that neither
said compromise was challenged nor order
to withdraw the suit was challenged. The
Complainant has not taken any subsequent
action, either civil or criminal, for a decade
till he has lodged F.I.R. dated 14.07.2023
against
applicant
wherein
after
investigation a charge sheet was filed,
which is subject matter of present case,
alleging that a fraud was played by
applicant with regard to properties referred
above as well as power of attorney was also
a result of a fraud.

4. In pursuance of above referred
F.I.R. investigation was conducted and a
charge sheet dated 30.08.2023 was filed in
Case Crime No. 0471 of 2023, under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.
wherein Trial Court took cognizance and
applicant has been summoned vide order
dated 22.09.2023, which is impugned in
present application.

5. Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Pranav Tiwari,
learned
Counsel
for
applicant,
has
vehemently urged that even considering the
material available before Investigating
Officer, the offences referred above are not
made out. The Complainant has given a
cloak of criminal offence to a dispute
which is essentially of civil nature and
which has already been settled by way of a
compromise and on its basis an earlier suit
was withdrawn. Learned Senior Advocate
also added that recently Complainant has
filed a fresh suit against applicant on same
issue. Learned Senior Advocate further
referred that an inquiry was conducted on a
complaint of Complainant by a Senior
Police Officer wherein it was found that
allegations against applicant were of civil
nature. Learned Senior Advocate referred
ingredients of offences, that they are not
made out.

6. Per-contra, Sri Ved Prakash
Dwivedi, learned counsel for Opposite
Party No. 4, has vehemently urged that
applicant has not only executed a power of
6 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
17
attorney, though he was not entitled to do
so, but under the garb of power of attorney
number of transactions of property situated
at District Mainpuri were executed as well.
The factum of compromise and withdrawal
of earlier suit was not disputed, however,
learned counsel has submitted that not only
power of attorney was a paper of fraud but
compromise itself was a creature of fraud
though admittedly compromise or order of
withdrawal of civil suit have not been
challenged further. Power of attorney was
also not challenged before an FIR was
lodged after about 15 years. Learned
counsel has drawn attention of Court to the
statement of Complainant recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C during investigation,
which
is
part
of
application
being
Annexure-9, and for reference the same is
reproduced hereinafter:-

"ईश्वर स िंह पुत्र स्व० गिंगा स िंह चौहान सनवा ी लाल
स िंह मान स िंह सिसडिग लोहार चाल चतुर्थ तल, रूम निं० िी 53 व
िी० 55 मुम्िई उम्र करीि 78 वर्थ ने पूछने पर िताया सक ाहि
मेरा िािा श्री मोती स िंह पुत्र स्व० लाल स िंह के नाम मोजा आराजी
लाईन देहात मैनपुरी गाटा िंख्या 201/1 रकिा 0.036 हे०,
गाटा िंख्या 201/3 रकिा 0.142 हे० गाटा िंख्या 252 रकिा
0.057 हे०, गाटा िंख्या 253 रकिा 0.121 हे०, गाटा िंख्या
254 रकिा 0.024 हे०, गाटा िंख्या 256/1 रकिा 0.109
हे०, गाटा िंख्या 257/1 रकिा 0.519 हे०, गाटा िंख्या 558
रकिा 0.008 हे० गाटा िंख्या 259 रकिा 0.073 हे0, गाटा
 िंख्या 260 रकिा 0.053 हे0, गाटा िंख्या 261 रकिा
0.045 हे०, गाटा िंख्या 262 रकिा 0.194 हे0, गाटा िंख्या
263/2 रकिा 0.048 हे0, गाटा िंख्या 263/3 रकिा
0.016 हे0 कुल 14 सकता गाटा में कुल रकिा 1.4450 हे0
र्ा जो मोती स िंह के नाम फ लीीः वर्थ 1386 तक अिंसकत रही मेरे
िावा मौती स िंह की मृत्यु के पश्चात उक्त जमीन सवरा त के आधार
पर राजस्व सनरीक्षक के आदेश सदनािंक 01.04.1977 के अनु ार
फ ली वर्थ 1387 े फ ली वर्थ 1392 वर मोती स िंह के दोनों
पुत्र हरनाम स िंह व गिंगा स िंह के नाम अिंसकत होकर शुद्ध खाता िन
गया। उ के पश्चात फ ली वर्थ 1393 े 1398 में उपरोक्त जमीन
के असिलेखों में कमलेश के नाम पर िूलव चढ़ गया और जमीन
स फथ हरनाम स िंह के नाम अिंसकत हो गया। हरनाम स िंह की मृत्यु के
पश्चात उक्त जमीन हरनाम स िंह के दत्तक पुत्र कमलेश स िंह के नाम
फ ली वर्थ 1411 े 1416 में अिंसकत हो गयी। प्रार्ी मुम्िई में
सनवा करता है। प्रार्ी के िाई िूपेन्द्र स िंह, सकशोर स िंह, सदगसवजय
स िंह अमेररका में रहते हैं। इ कारण इ म्िन्द्ध में कोई जानकारी
नहीं हो की। वर्थ 2008 में प्रार्ी को जानकारी होने पर प्रार्ी द्वारा
राजस्व िंसहता की धारा 33/39 के अन्द्तगथत उप सजलासधकारी
मैनपुरी के न्द्यायालय में िाद िं0 281/2008 योसजत सकया
सज पर तह ील दार मैनपुरी द्वारा जािंच कर लेखपाल आख्या,
कानूनगो आख्या व तह ील दार मैनपुरी की आख्या सदनािंक
18.09.2008 को उपरोक्त गाटाओिं में प्रार्ी के सपता श्री गिंगा
स िंह का नाम उक्त जमीन में कमलेश स िंह के ार् ह खातेदार के
रूप में जोिने की ररपोटथ न्द्यायालय उपसजलासधकारी दर मैनपुरी को
प्रेसर्त की गयी सज पर न्द्यायालय उपसजलासधकारी मैनपुरी दर के
द्वारा पक्षकार कमलेश स िंह को नोसट जारी सकये। वाद की ुनवाई
के दौरान तत्कालीन उप सजलासधकारी मैनपुरी के द्वारा आदेश सदनािंक
01.02.2010 के स्र्गन आदेश द्वारा सववासदत आराजी पर यर्ा
सस्र्सत िनाये रखने तर्ा दोनो पक्षों को सक ी अन्द्य व्यसक्त को
अन्द्तणथ/सिक्री पर रोक लगाई र्ी। उपसजलासधकारी मैनपुरी का स्र्गन
आदेश सदनािंक 01.02.2010 आज िी प्रिावी है। इ ी दौरान
कमलेश स िंह के द्वारा सदनािंक 09.09.2008 को उपसनिन्द्धक
कायाथलय तह ील िोगााँव में सशवराम पुत्र परमेश्वर दयाल सनवा ी नई
िस्ती देवपुरा के पक्ष में एक मुख्तार नामा तैयार करवाया गया सज में
दोनों पक्षों के द्वारा अपने फजी पते अिंसकत कराये गये। कमलेश स िंह
ने अपना पता छोटा िाजार िोगााँव तर्ा सशवराम ने अपना पता
छोटा िाजार िोगािंव दशाथया जिसक छोटा िाजार िोगााँव में उक्त
लोगो द्वारा किी सनवा नहीं सकया है। तत् मय शा नादेश पत्र
 िंख्या 2890/सश०का०लख०/2003 सदनािंक 25.07.2003
के अनु ार मुख्तार नामा अपने रक्त म्िन्द्ध में कराने का सनयम र्ा
तर्ा खून के ररस्तेदार े हटकर मुख्तारआम के सलए सजलासधकारी
की अनुमसत असनवायथ र्ी। उपसनिन्द्धक कायाथलय अलीगिंज सजला
एटा में रसजस्टिथ करवायी गयी पावर आफ आटनी में सजलासधकारी
महोदय की अनुमसत का सजक्र है। सकन्द्तु यह अनुमसत सक जनपद के
सजलासधकारी े ली गयी है यह िात पावर आफ आटनी में सछपाई
गयी है। कमलेश स िंह के द्वारा सकये गये मुख्तारआम में सशवराम को
अपने रक्त म्िन्द्ध में आने वाले चचाजात िाई िताया गया जिसक
कमलेश स िंह ठाकुर जासत े तर्ा सशवराम स िंह समश्रा ब्राह्मण जासत
 े है इ प्रकार उक्त कमलेश स िंह व सशवराम स िंह के द्वारा गलत
ियानी के आधार पर उपसनिन्द्धक कायाथलय िोगािंव े तैयार कराये
गये फजी मुख्तार आम के आधार पर जमीन की सिक्री की गयी।
तत्पश्चात उपरोक्त लोगो के द्वारा सदनािंक 31.12.2009 को एक
मुख्तारआम पुनीः उपसनिन्द्धक कायाथलय तह ील अलीगिंज एटा में
पिंजीकृत करवाया सज में कमलेश स िंह के द्वारा अपना पता लाला
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
स िंह मान स िंह सिसडििंग, लोहार चाल मुम्िई दशाथया गया तर्ा
सशवराम का पता नई िस्ती देवपुरा मैनपुरी दशाथया गया तर्ा म्िन्द्ध
में समत्र व सवश्वा पात्र िताया। इ प्रकार कमलेश स िंह व सशवराम
समश्रा के द्वारा फजी व कूट रसचत दस्तावेज तैयार कर तर्ा
उपसजलासधकारी मैनपुरी के द्वारा सिक्री पर रोक के उपरान्द्त िी प्रार्ी
के सपता गिंगा स िंह के सहस् े की 1⁄2 िाग की जमीन की सिक्री कर
दी गयी है। यह िी अवगत करा दूिं सक कमलेश स िंह चौहान द्वारा
मुम्िई में िी फ्राि सकया गया र्ा। सज के म्िन्द्ध में कमलेश स िंह
के सवरूद्ध र्ाना मटुिंगा सजला मुम्िई महाराष्ट्र में मु०अ० िं०
541/2021 धारा 419/420/467/ 468/471/34 िादसव
में सदनािंक 26.11.2021 को मुकदमा दजथ हुआ र्ा उपरोक्त
कमलेश स िंह आसद प्रार्ी की पूवथजों की म्पसत्त को धोखाधिी व
कूट रचना करके हिपने की पूरी कोसशश कर रहे हैं और मेरा
नुक ान करने पर आमादा है। यही मेरा ियान है।.......

प्रश्न...... आपका वर्ष 2012 में माननीय
न्यायालय में राजीनामा हो गया था उसके पश्चात आपने उक्त
एफआईआर अंककत करायी है। ..... उत्तर.... राजीनामा
हमारा इस आधार पर हुआ था कक उक्त भूकम हरनाम कसंह व
गंगा कसंह दोनों की थी। और आपसी बातें घर पर बैठकर कर
लेंगे कजसमें हम भाईयों को अपना कहस्सा देने की बात मूूँह
जुबानी कही थी अब तक कहस्सा न देने और स्टे के बाद भी
बैनामा कराने पर मेरे द्वारा यह एफआईआर दजष करायी थी।"
(Emphasis supplied)

7. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

8.

Before
adverting
to
rival
submissions it would be relevant to refer
few paragraphs of a recent judgement
passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan
Vs. State Represented by SHO and
another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, as
the facts of said case and discussion on law,
would be relevant for consideration of
present case:-

"9. The law with regard to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings has been succinctly
summarized by this Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India
Limited1 after considering the earlier
precedents. It will be apposite to refer to
the following observations of this Court in
the said case, which read thus:

"12. The principles relating to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash complaints and criminal proceedings
have been stated and reiterated by this
Court in several decisions. To mention a
few-Madhavrao
Jiwajirao
Scindia
v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988)
1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan
Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal

Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central

Bureau
of
Investigation
v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5
SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of
Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8
SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC
259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological
E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma
v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay
Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC
122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles,
relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed
where
the
allegations
made
in
the

complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
6 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
19
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out the case alleged
against the accused. For this purpose, the
complaint has to be examined as a whole,
but without examining the merits of the
allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor
a meticulous analysis of the material nor
an
assessment
of
the
reliability
or
genuineness of the allegations in the
complaint, is warranted while examining
prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be
quashed where it is a clear abuse of the
process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not,
however, be used to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The power should
be used sparingly and with abundant
caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required
to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients
of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings
should
not
be
quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted
only where the complaint is so bereft of
even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make
out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely
a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are
different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not.

13. While on this issue, it is
necessary to take notice of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
This is obviously on account of a
prevalent
impression
that
civil
law
remedies are time consuming and do not
adequately
protect
the
interests
of
lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen
in several family disputes also, leading to
irretrievable
breakdown
of
marriages/families. There is also an
impression
that
if
a
person
could
somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of
imminent settlement. Any effort to settle
civil disputes and claims, which do not
involve any criminal offence, by applying
pressure through criminal prosecution
should be deprecated and discouraged. In
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2
SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court
observed : (SCC p. 643, para 8)

"It is to be seen if a matter,
which is essentially of a civil nature, has
been given a cloak of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a short cut
of other remedies available in law. Before
issuing process a criminal court has to
exercise a great deal of caution. For the
accused it is a serious matter. This Court
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has laid certain principles on the basis of
which the High Court is to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code. Jurisdiction under this section has
to be exercised to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice."

14. While no one with a
legitimate cause or grievance should be
prevented from seeking remedies available
in criminal law, a complainant who
initiates or persists with a prosecution,
being fully aware that the criminal
proceedings are unwarranted and his
remedy lies only in civil law, should
himself be made accountable, at the end

of
such
misconceived
criminal
proceedings, in accordance with law. One
positive step that can be taken by the
courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions
and harassment of innocent parties, is to
exercise their power under Section 250
CrPC more frequently, where they discern
malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives
on the part of the complainant. Be that as
it may."

10. The Court has also noted the
concern with regard to a growing tendency
in business circles to convert purely civil
disputes into criminal cases. The Court
observed that this is obviously on account of
a prevalent impression that civil law
remedies are time consuming and do not
adequately
protect
the
interests
of
lenders/creditors. The Court also recorded
that there is an impression that if a person
could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of
imminent settlement. The Court, relying on
the law laid down by it in the case of G.
Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. held that any
effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence,
by applying pressure through criminal
prosecution should be deprecated and
discouraged. The Court also observed that
though no one with a legitimate cause or
grievance should be prevented from seeking
remedies available in criminal law, a
complainant who initiates or persists with a
prosecution, being fully aware that the
criminal proceedings are unwarranted and
his remedy lies only in civil law,should
himself be made accountable, at the end of
such misconceived criminal proceedings, in
accordance with law.

11. This Court, in the case of
Prof.
R.K.
Vijayasarathy
v.
Sudha
Seetharam has culled out the ingredients to
constitute the offence under Sections 415
and 420 of IPC, as under:

"15. Section 415 of the Penal
Code reads thus:

"415.
Cheating.-Whoever,
by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly
induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or intentionally
induces the person so deceived to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to
that person in body, mind, reputation or
property, is said to "cheat"."

16. The ingredients to constitute an
offence of cheating are as follows:

16.1. There should be fraudulent or
dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving
him:

16.1.1. The person so induced
should be intentionally induced to deliver
6 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
21
any property to any person or to consent
that any person shall retain any property,
or

16.1.2. The person so induced
should be intentionally induced to do or to
omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived; and

16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2.
above, the act or omission should be one
which caused or is likely to cause damage
or harm to the person induced in body,
mind, reputation or property.

17. A fraudulent or dishonest
inducement is an essential ingredient of the
offence. A person who dishonestly induces
another person to deliver any property is
liable for the offence of cheating.

18. Section 420 of the Penal Code
reads thus:

"420. Cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property.- Whoever
cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

19. The ingredients to constitute an
offence under Section 420 are as follows:

19.1. A person must commit the
offence of cheating under

Section 415; and

19.2. The person cheated must
be dishonestly induced to

(a) deliver property to any
person; or

(b) make, alter or destroy
valuable security or anything signed or
sealed and capable of being converted
into valuable security.

20. Cheating is an essential
ingredient for an act to constitute an

offence under Section 420."

12. A similar view has been
taken by this Court in the cases
ofArchana Rana v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Mariam Fasihuddin v.
State by Adugodi Police Station.

13. It could thus be seen that
for attracting the provision of Section
420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must
show that the ingredients of Section
415 of IPC are made out and the
person
cheated
must
have
been
dishonestly induced to deliver the
property to any person; or to make,
alter or destroy valuable security or
anything signed or sealed and capable
of
being
converted
into
valuable
security. In other words, for attracting
the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it
must be shown that the FIR/complaint
discloses:

(i) the deception of any person;

(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly
inducing that person to deliver any
property to any person; and
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) dishonest intention of the
accused at the time of making the
inducement." (Emphasis supplied)

9. As referred above, it is not in
dispute that power of attorney was
executed/ registered on 09.09.2008, i.e.,
almost about 15 years ago. It is also not in
dispute that Complainant has filed an
application under Section 33/39 of U.P.
Revenue Code wherein an order was
passed in his favour and there was a stay.
However, the effect of it, i.e., whether
power of attorney could be executed or not,
could have been decided by a Civil Court
but execution of power of attorney was
never challenged. It is not the case of
Complainant that he was not aware about
power of attorney. It is also not in dispute
that a civil suit was filed between parties in
the year 2012, which on basis of a
compromise, was withdrawn. Execution of
compromise has not been disputed though
now it has been alleged that it was forgery.
There was no challenge at the instance of
Complainant
either
to
execution
of
compromise or withdrawal of suit. It is
further not in dispute that recently a civil
suit has also been filed by Complainant
with regard to property in question.

10. In aforesaid background, I find
merit in argument of learned Senior Advocate
appearing for applicant that even considering
the above referred statement of complainant
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the
ingredients of above referred offences which
are also discussed in A.M. Mohan (Supra)
are not made out. There is no element that
applicant
has
dishonestly
induced
the
complainant to deliver any property as well
as since power of attorney has not been
challenged for last about 15 years before any
Civil Court, only on basis of statement of
Complainant recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., offence under Sections 420 and 468
I.P.C. i.e., "cheating" and "forgery" are not
even prima facie made out.

11 The contention of learned counsel
for Opposite Party No. 4 has no legal
substance as bare perusal of statement of
Complainant recorded during investigation
does not disclose that any offence referred
was made out. Power of attorney is alleged to
be a piece of forgery and cheating mainly it
being irregular. No ingredients of offence
such as deception of a person, fraudulently
inducing any person to deliver any property
and dishonest intention, are present. Similarly
ingredients of forgery are also not made out
since only allegation is that power of attorney
could not be prepared due to a legal
impediment
and
applicant
was
not
empowered to execute it, which would fall
short to make out an offence of forgery.

12. The investigation in present case
appears to be conducted in a very casual
manner, therefore, in this regard, reference of
outcome of an inquiry conducted by Police
Officer become relevant that it was a purely
civil dispute. In this regard, an answer to a
question of Investigating Officer given by
Complainant also become relevant that:

"प्रश्न...... आपका वर्ष 2012 में माननीय
न्यायालय में राजीनामा हो गया था उसके पश्चात आपने उक्त
एफआईआर अंककत करायी है। ..... उत्तर.... राजीनामा
हमारा इस आधार पर हुआ था कक उक्त भूकम हरनाम कसंह व
गंगा कसंह दोनों की थी। और आपसी बातें घर पर बैठकर कर
लेंगे कजसमें हम भाईयों को अपना कहस्सा देने की बात मूूँह
जुबानी कही थी अब तक कहस्सा न देने और स्टे के बाद भी
बैनामा कराने पर मेरे द्वारा यह एफआईआर दजष करायी थी।"

13. In above background, Court takes
note of observations made by Supreme
Court in A.M. Mohan (Supra) that there is
6 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
23
a growing tendency to conduct purely civil
dispute into criminal cases and further
observation that there is an impression that
if a person could somehow be entangled in
a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood
of imminent settlement and for that the
observations made by Supreme Court in G.
Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC
636 are also relevant.

14. In aforesaid circumstances, I find
that it is a fit case where in exercise of
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance
and summoning order can be quashed since
it is an outcome of investigation which
appears to be very casual in nature and as
discussed above dispute between parties is
of civil in nature, which could not be given
a criminal angle, only to harass accused
i.e., applicant as well as ingredients of
offences levelled are not made out.

15. It would be appropriate to
mention following paragraph of a judgment
passed by Supreme Court in Naresh
Kumar and another vs. The State of
Karnataka and another, 2024 INSC 196,
that in similar circumstances inherent
power can be exercised:

"6. In the case of Paramjeet
Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11
SCC 673, this Court recognized that
although the inherent powers of a High
Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure should be exercised
sparingly, yet the High Court must not
hesitate
in
quashing
such
criminal
proceedings which are essentially of a civil
nature. This is what was held:

"12.
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 the
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of the court."

Relying upon the decision in
Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in
Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14
SCC
626,
observed
that
criminal
proceedings cannot be taken recourse to
as a weapon of harassment. In Usha
Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West
Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90,
relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it
was again held that where a dispute which
is essentially of a civil nature, is given a
cloak of a criminal offence, then such
disputes can be quashed, by exercising the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure."

(Emphasis supplied)

16. In the result, application is
allowed. Impugned charge sheet dated
30.08.2023,
summoning
order
dated
22.09.2023 and all further proceedings in
Case No. 4206 of 2023, arising out of Case
Crime No. 0471 of 2023, under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kotwali, District Mainpuri, are hereby
quashed.

17. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.

---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 24
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY J.

Application U/S 482 No. 19550 of 2024

Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Kamal Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Kartikeya Shukla

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 200,
202, 204 & 482 - The Indian Panel
Code, 1860 - Sections 383 & 387: -
Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
summoning order U/s 204 of Cr.P.C. - both
the parties (Applicant & Complainant) are in
litigation on the issue of trade mark and
copyright - complaint case was filed by
complainant - to put pressure upon the
applicant to compromise in the case - court
finds that, in order to make out a case of
extortion, one of the essential ingredient is
to deliver any property or valuable security
being under threat by Complainant to
accused is absolutely missing - however, it
was not a case of Complainant that he
actually handed over Rs. 5 lacs to accused -
held, in order to committing of extortion u/s
387 IPC act of extortion has to be
concluded in terms of section 383 IPC -
since, in this case, ingredient of section 387
IPC are not made out therefore, in view of
law settled in case of A.M. Mohan (SC) it is
a fit case, where in exercise of inherent
power, impugned criminal proceedings can
be quashed - hence, instant application is
allowed.
 (Para - 11, 13, 14, 15)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. A. M. Mohan Vs St. Represented by SHO &
anr.(2024 SCC Online SC 339),

2. Dhananjay @ Dhandnjay Kumar Singh Vs St.
of Bihar & ors. (2007 14 SCC 768),

3. Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs St. of UP &
ors.(2003 INSC 687),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1.

Applicant
is
aggrieved
by
summoning order dated 28.08.2023 passed
under Section 204 Cr.P.C. by Additional
Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Dacoity
Affected Area), Jalaun at Orai in Complaint
Case No. 58 of 2022 (M/s Balaji Traders
Proprietor Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs.
Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Mohan), whereby
applicant has been summoned to face trial
for offence under Section 387 IPC.

2. It has been pointed out that both
parties are in litigation on the issue of trade
mark and copyright with regard to
packaging of Supari which is pending
before appropriate Court. It is the case of
applicant that Complainant has initiated
present proceedings only to put pressure on
him to compromise in the case.

3. It is the case of Complainant that
alleged
occurrence
took
place
on
22.05.2022
when
accused
side
have
threatened him and tried to kidnap him by
pointing a gun in order to procure Rs. 5