# Keshav Ugan Jha v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 927
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 11379 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/keshav-ugan-jha-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51394
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 409, 420, 504 & 506 - Opposite party
no.2 lodged FIR against applicant and co-accused
alleging that informant's company placed order for
TMT bars with applicant's company through coaccused - Fifty percent advance of ₹40,00,000/-
was paid with delivery due in four days - Upon
non-delivery,
applicant
demanded
balance
amount,
leading
to
further
payment
of
₹18,00,000/- by Informant - FIR alleges that only
₹20,00,000/-
was
refunded
and
remaining
₹38,00,000/- was not returned, accused persons
cheated Informant - As besides civil dispute
between the parties, FIR discloses cognizable
offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating
by applicant, supported by material collected
during investigation and charge-sheet has been
filed, thus criminal proceedings cannot be quashed
merely on ground of existence of civil dispute, as
held by Supreme Court in Pratibha, Mahesh
Chaudhary and Priti Saraf (infra) - No illegality in
charge-sheet or impugned summoning order.
(Para 3, 16, 17)

Application dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Keshav Ugan Jha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
927
cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the
allegations in the complaint/ FIR/ chargesheet. We would like to add that whether the
allegations in the complaint are otherwise
correct or not, has to be decided on the basis
of the evidence to be led during the course of
trial. Simply because there is a remedy
provided for breach of contract or arbitral
proceedings initiated at the instance of the
appellants, that does not by itself clothe the
court to come to a conclusion that civil
remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation
of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will
be an abuse of the process of the court for
exercising inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482CrPC for quashing such
proceedings."

38. As besides the civil dispute between
the parties, the allegations in the FIR make
out commission of cognizable offences of
criminal breach of trust and cheating by the
applicant, which allegations have been
established by the material collected during
investigation and, accordingly, a charge-sheet
has been filed against the applicant, I am of
the considered view that as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pratibha, Mahesh Chaudhary and Priti
Saraf (Supra), the charge-sheet and the
criminal proceedings against the applicant
cannot be quashed merely because the
allegations may also disclose a civil dispute
between the parties.

39. So far as the question of delay in
lodging the FIR is concerned, the charge
sheet and the summoning order cannot be
quashed on the sole ground of delay in
lodging the FIR where the allegations
levelled in the FIR have been established
during investigation.

40. In view of the foregoing discussion,
I am of the considered view that the
allegations make out a prima facie case for
trial of the applicant for commission of the
offences of cheating and criminal breach of
trust while acting as an agent of the company.
The allegations have been found to have been
established by the material collected during
investigation and thereafter a charge-sheet
has been filed against the applicant and the
trial Court has taken cognizance of the
offence. There appears to be no illegality in
the charge-sheet or in the impugned order
dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow in
Criminal Case No.18415 of 2023, whereby
the trial Court has taken cognizance of the
offences and summoned the applicant to face
the trial.

38. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant lacks merit
and the same is dismissed.

39. The trial Court shall decide the trial
in accordance with the law, without being
influenced by any observation made in this
order.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 927
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 11379 of 2023

Keshav Ugan Jha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Ajeet Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Mrs. Suniti Sachan
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 409, 420, 504 & 506 - Opposite party
no.2 lodged FIR against applicant and co-accused
alleging that informant's company placed order for
TMT bars with applicant's company through coaccused - Fifty percent advance of ₹40,00,000/-
was paid with delivery due in four days - Upon
non-delivery,
applicant
demanded
balance
amount,
leading
to
further
payment
of
₹18,00,000/- by Informant - FIR alleges that only
₹20,00,000/-
was
refunded
and
remaining
₹38,00,000/- was not returned, accused persons
cheated Informant - As besides civil dispute
between the parties, FIR discloses cognizable
offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating
by applicant, supported by material collected
during investigation and charge-sheet has been
filed, thus criminal proceedings cannot be quashed
merely on ground of existence of civil dispute, as
held by Supreme Court in Pratibha, Mahesh
Chaudhary and Priti Saraf (infra) - No illegality in
charge-sheet or impugned summoning order.
(Para 3, 16, 17)

Application dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp 1 SCC
335

2. CBI Vs Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
379, (Para 10)

3. Pratibha Vs Rameshwari Devi, (2007) 12 SCC
369

4. Mahesh Chaudhary Vs St. of Raj., (2009) 4
SCC 439, (Paras 11, 12)

5. Priti Saraf Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2021) 16
SCC 142, (Para 31)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav,
the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, the learned A.G.A.
appearing on behalf of the State and Ms.
Suniti Sachan, the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2/informant.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant
seeking
quashing
of
the
impugned charge sheet no.1/2023 dated
16.05.2023,
summoning
order
dated
25.05.2023
including
the
entire
proceedings of Case No.59497 of 2023:
State Vs. Keshav Ugan Jha, arising out of
Case Crime No.0047 of 2023, under
Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police
Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow
pending in the Court of District & Sessions
Judge, Lucknow.

3. The opposite party no.2 had lodged
an F.I.R. on 24.01.2023 against the
applicant and one Desh Dipak Azad,
alleging that the informant's company
Fuzenite Infratel Pvt. Ltd. had received an
order to supply TMT bars (iron bars) to a
construction company and he had in turn
placed order upon Keshav Enterprises, a
company based at Pune and owned by the
applicant, through the co-accused Desh
Dipak Azad. The informant had paid fifty
percent of the sale consideration amounting
to Rs.40,00,000/- on 28.12.2022 and the
material was to be delivered within four
days, but when the material was not
delivered and the informant repetitively
contacted the supplier, he insisted for
payment
of
balance
amount
also,
whereupon
the
informant
paid
Rs.18,00,000/- more through RTGS on
07.01.2023. The F.I.R. alleges that when
the informant repetitively asked for refund
of the amount merely Rs.20,00,000/- were
repaid
and
the
balance
amount
of
Rs.38,00,000/- has not been repaid and
therefore it appears that the accused
persons had cheated the informant.
1 All. Keshav Ugan Jha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
929

4. After investigation a charge sheet
was submitted on 16.05.2023 alleging
commission of offences under Sections
409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C and the learned
trial court has taken cognizance of the
offence by means of an order dated
25.05.2023.

5. The applicant has sought quashing
of the proceedings on the ground that the
allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are false
and the learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the dispute between the
parties is regarding non-payment of money
paid under a contract, which is purely a
civil dispute.

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and
learned counsel for the informant have
submitted that although the allegations give
rise to a civil dispute but it is not that the
allegations do not make out commission of
a cognizable offence by the applicant.

7. The allegations levelled in the
F.I.R. clearly make out a case of cognizable
offences by the applicant. The mere fact
that the allegations also make out existence
of civil dispute would not be a ground to
quash the criminal proceedings when the
allegations clearly make out commission of
cognizable offences by the applicant. The
correctness of allegations will be examined
by the learned trial court after giving an
opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

8. In State of Haryana versus
Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the law
relating to exercise of exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code, and gave the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it was clarified that 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 a
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
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
just conclusion that there is 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 a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the 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.

9. After mentioning the aforesaid
categories, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
added 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."

10. In CBI versus Aryan Singh,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"10. From the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that the High Court has
dealt with the proceedings before it, as if,
the High Court was conducting a mini trial
and/or the High Court was considering the
applications against the judgment and
order passed by the learned Trial Court on
conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal
principle of law, at the stage of discharge
and/or
quashing
of
the
criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is
not required to conduct the mini trial. The
High Court in the common impugned
judgment and order has observed that the
charges against the accused are not
proved. This is not the stage where the
prosecution/investigating
agency
is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges
are required to be proved during the trial
on the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating
agency.
Therefore, the High Court has materially
erred in going in detail in the allegations
and the material collected during the
course of the investigation against the
accused, at this stage. At the stage of
discharge and/or while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the
Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is
required
to
consider
"whether
any
sufficient material is available to proceed
further against the accused for which the
accused is required to be tried or not".

11. Therefore, the submission of the
learned Counsel for the applicant that the
allegations leveled in the FIR are false,
cannot be examined by this Court while
deciding an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

12. So far as the next submission of
the earned Counsel for the applicant, that
the dispute between the parties is purely
civil in nature, the allegations in the FIR
1 All. Keshav Ugan Jha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
931
are that the applicant has committed the
offences of criminal breach of trust and
cheating against the informant.

13. In Pratibha v. Rameshwari
Devi, (2007) 12 SCC 369, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that "it is well settled
that criminal and civil proceedings are
separate and independent and the pendency
of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a
criminal proceeding even if they arise out of
the same set of facts."

14. In Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of
Rajasthan, (2009) 4 SCC 439, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

11. The principle providing for
exercise of the power by a High Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding is
well known. The Court shall ordinarily
exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia, in the
event the allegations contained in the FIR or
the complaint petition even if on face value
are taken to be correct in their entirety, does
not disclose commission of an offence.

12. It is also well settled that save
and except in very exceptional circumstances,
the Court would not look to any document
relied upon by the accused in support of his
defence. Although allegations contained in
the complaint petition may disclose a civil
dispute, the same by itself may not be a
ground
to
hold
that
the
criminal
proceedings should not be allowed to
continue. For the purpose of exercising its
jurisdiction, the superior courts are also
required to consider as to whether the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint
petition fulfil the ingredients of the offences
alleged against the accused.

(Emphasis supplied)

15. In Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2021) 16 SCC 142, it was held
that: -

31. In the instant case, on a
careful reading of the complaint/ FIR/
charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot be said
that the complaint does not disclose the
commission of an offence. The ingredients
of the offences under Sections 406 and 420
IPC cannot be said to be absent on the
basis
of
the
allegations
in
the
complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like
to add that whether the allegations in the
complaint are otherwise correct or not, has
to be decided on the basis of the evidence
to be led during the course of trial. Simply
because there is a remedy provided for
breach of contract or arbitral proceedings
initiated at the instance of the appellants,
that does not by itself clothe the court to
come to a conclusion that civil remedy is
the only remedy, and the initiation of
criminal proceedings, in any manner, will
be an abuse of the process of the court for
exercising inherent powers of the High
Court under Section 482CrPC for quashing
such proceedings."

16. As besides the civil dispute
between the parties, the allegations in the
FIR make out commission of cognizable
offences of criminal breach of trust and
cheating by the applicant, which allegations
have been established by the material
collected
during
investigation
and,
accordingly, a charge-sheet has been filed
against the applicant, I am of the
considered view that as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pratibha, Mahesh Chaudhary and Priti
Saraf (Supra), the charge-sheet and the
criminal proceedings against the applicant
cannot be quashed merely because the
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allegations may also disclose a civil dispute
between the parties.

17. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, there appears to be no illegality
in the charge-sheet or the impugned
summoning order dated 25.05.2023.

18. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. lacks merit and the same is
dismissed
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 932
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 12417 of 2005

Ram Komal & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Neeraj Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri K.N. Mishra, Sri R.K. Shahi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 173(8), 216, 228, 240
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 435, 504 &
506 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
criminal proceedings - a dispute originated
from a land-related altercation where eight
individuals allegedly assaulted the family of
informant - FIR - Investigation - charge-sheet
- against five accused, with three others were
cleared
without
court
permission
and
allegedly without new evidence - order of S.P.
transferred the investigation to a different
police station, resulting in a second chargesheet implicating all eight - the applicants
claimed procedural irregularities and sought
to quash the entire case - the court examined
the legality of transferring the investigation
without judicial sanction by citing Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. and distinguishing the facts
from a referenced Supreme Court ruling and
held that, no formal permission of the
concerned court was necessary for S.P. before
transferring the investigation to another I.O.
of another Police Station - hence, the second
charge-sheet was upheld as legally sound and
accordingly, application is dismissed - with
direction to the Judicial Magistrate to proceed
promptly with the trial and conclude it as
early as possible as the matter become very
old. (Para - 20, 21, 23)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs St. of Guj.,
(2004) 5 SCC 347,

2.
Om
Prakash
Narang
Vs
St.
(Delhi
Administration) AIR 1979 SCC 1791,

3. Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha
Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs St. of A.P.,
AIR 1999 SC 2332,

4. N.P. Jharia Vs St. of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2677.

(Delivered by Hon'bleUmesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Singh, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A
for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the
proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1278 of
2005, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452,
435, 504, and 506 I.P.C., registered at
Police Station Bankata, District Deoria,
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 11, Deoria.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
on 08.01.2005 at about 3:00 p.m., eight
persons including the applicants came to