# Laxmi Kant Pandey v. State Of U.P. & Anr. 1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1109
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-17
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 3900 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxmi-kant-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-anr-1110-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-52626
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sections 265 and 266 IPC is legally sustainable
in view of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the
Supreme Court's ruling in State of U.P. v. Aman
Mittal (2019).

Whether criminal proceedings under Sections
419, 420 IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 can continue despite
termination of dealership (civil consequences)..

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482, - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section - 265, 266, 419, 420, -
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section
- 3, 7 - Legal Metrology Act, 2009 -
Sections - 2(g), 3, 26, 28, 30, 51:-
Application u/section 482 - applicant,
who is a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation, ruing a filling Station - challenging
the charge-sheet and summoning order -
complaint
-
Raid/Inspection
by
local
administration team - inspection team found
irregulates in dispensing units which was
installed at the pump - FIR lodged by Supply
Inspector, under IPC Sections 265, 266, 419,
420 and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities
Act - Applicant argued Sections 265 & 266 IPC
not applicable due to Section 51 of Legal
Metrology Act and Supreme Court ruling in State
of U.P. v. Aman Mittal (2019) - applicant urged
that dealership has already terminated, hence
criminal proceedings untenable - court finds
that,
termination
of
dealership
confirmed
irregularities - Legal Metrology Act governs
weights and measures offences but does not
bar prosecution under cheating/fraud provisions
of IPC or Essential Commodities Act - hence,
prosecution under Sections 265 & 266 IPC not
sustainable in view of Section 51 Legal
Metrology Act and Aman Mittal ruling - held,
Termination of dealership is civil consequence
but does not bar criminal prosecution - Offences
under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 3/7
Essential Commodities Act are not excluded by
Legal
Metrology
Act
-
consequently,
Summoning order is set aside only for Sections
265 & 266 IPC and prosecution under Sections
419, 420 IPC and Section 3/7 Essential
Commodities
Act
allowed
to
continue
-
accordingly, Application is partly allowed.
(Para - 20, 23, 24, 25)
 Application Partly Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal, (2019) 19
SCC 740.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) - Essential Commodities Act,
1955 - Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of charge-sheet - inspection team -
irregularities - raid - Tampering of dispensing
unit seal - short delivery of fuel - Civil and
Ccriminal consequences - Legal Metrology Act
override - Cheating and fraud - Essential
Commodities Act violation - Mini trial not
permissible at 482 stage.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 0111 of 2017, Police Station
Badausa, District Banda - Charge-sheet No. 90
of 2017 dated 6.9.2017 - Summoning order
dated 25.10.2017 in Case No. 1660/IX/17 by Ist
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri: Sri Ami Tandon,
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Deo Prakash
Singh and learned AGA.

## Text

10 All. Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
1109
another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the person or
reputation of any one in whom that person
is interested, with intent to cause alarm to
that person, or to cause that person to do
any act which he is not legally bound to do,
or to omit to do any act which that person
is legally entitled to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat,
commits criminal intimidation. A perusal
of the complaint would demonstrate that
the allegation in respect of the aforesaid
offence is to the effect that the Applicants
along with other unknown persons on
5.5.2021 have stated that if the complainant
came to the house of the Applicants for
taking away the wife, he would be killed.
The complaint does not specify as to what
was
the
language
used/uttered
by
Applicants. The complainant and the
Applicants are relatives, the Applicants
being the father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the complainant, it is not in dispute
between the parties that there is a
matrimonial dispute between husband and
wife. The allegations as per the complaint
is against six persons, two known persons
(being Applicants) and four unknown
persons. It has not been stated in the
complaint or in the statement of the
complainant before the court concerned as
to the person who has extended the threat
of life to the complainant. General
allegation with regard to threatening of life
by the Applicants and four other accused
persons have been made without any
specification.

14. The background of the dispute
between the parties is essentially required
to be examined by the court while
considering
the
question
of
the
proceedings. It is not in dispute between
the parties that the Applicants and the
complainant are relatives. It is also not in
dispute that a matrimonial dispute between
the parties has arisen on account of the
friction between husband and wife. The
complainant does not specify in the
complaint as to the person who have given
the threatening of life to the complainant
although, in the complaint there are general
allegations against six persons. Such vague
and general allegations, which lacks
specification does not fulfil the requirement
of
summoning
the
Applicants
under
Sections 506 of Indian Penal Code.

15. In view of the aforesaid, the court
concerned erred in issuing summons
against Applicants under Sections 504 and
506 of Indian Penal Code. The summoning
order dated 7.1.2022 passed by Special
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad as
well as entire proceedings of Complaint
Case No 745 of 2021 (Gyanendra Sharma
Vs. Smt. Heerawati and another), Police
Station - Colonelganj, District - Prayagraj,
under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code, pending in court of Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, are hereby
quashed.

16. The present application under
section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
is hereby allowed.
--------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1109
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3900 of 2018

Laxmi Kant Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Ami Tandon, Kamlesh Shukla, Raj Mohan
Saggi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether prosecution of the applicant under
Sections 265 and 266 IPC is legally sustainable
in view of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the
Supreme Court's ruling in State of U.P. v. Aman
Mittal (2019).

Whether criminal proceedings under Sections
419, 420 IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 can continue despite
termination of dealership (civil consequences)..

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482, - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section - 265, 266, 419, 420, -
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section
- 3, 7 - Legal Metrology Act, 2009 -
Sections - 2(g), 3, 26, 28, 30, 51:-
Application u/section 482 - applicant,
who is a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation, ruing a filling Station - challenging
the charge-sheet and summoning order -
complaint
-
Raid/Inspection
by
local
administration team - inspection team found
irregulates in dispensing units which was
installed at the pump - FIR lodged by Supply
Inspector, under IPC Sections 265, 266, 419,
420 and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities
Act - Applicant argued Sections 265 & 266 IPC
not applicable due to Section 51 of Legal
Metrology Act and Supreme Court ruling in State
of U.P. v. Aman Mittal (2019) - applicant urged
that dealership has already terminated, hence
criminal proceedings untenable - court finds
that,
termination
of
dealership
confirmed
irregularities - Legal Metrology Act governs
weights and measures offences but does not
bar prosecution under cheating/fraud provisions
of IPC or Essential Commodities Act - hence,
prosecution under Sections 265 & 266 IPC not
sustainable in view of Section 51 Legal
Metrology Act and Aman Mittal ruling - held,
Termination of dealership is civil consequence
but does not bar criminal prosecution - Offences
under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 3/7
Essential Commodities Act are not excluded by
Legal
Metrology
Act
-
consequently,
Summoning order is set aside only for Sections
265 & 266 IPC and prosecution under Sections
419, 420 IPC and Section 3/7 Essential
Commodities
Act
allowed
to
continue
-
accordingly, Application is partly allowed.
(Para - 20, 23, 24, 25)
 Application Partly Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal, (2019) 19
SCC 740.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) - Essential Commodities Act,
1955 - Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of charge-sheet - inspection team -
irregularities - raid - Tampering of dispensing
unit seal - short delivery of fuel - Civil and
Ccriminal consequences - Legal Metrology Act
override - Cheating and fraud - Essential
Commodities Act violation - Mini trial not
permissible at 482 stage.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 0111 of 2017, Police Station
Badausa, District Banda - Charge-sheet No. 90
of 2017 dated 6.9.2017 - Summoning order
dated 25.10.2017 in Case No. 1660/IX/17 by Ist
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri: Sri Ami Tandon,
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Deo Prakash
Singh and learned AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ami Tandon, Advocate,
learned counsel for Applicant and Sri Om
Prakash Dwivedi, learned AGA for State.

2. The present application is preferred
by applicant under Section 482 of Criminal
10 All. Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
1111
Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing chargesheet dated 6.9.2017 being No. 90 of 2017
arising out of Crime No. 0111 of 2017
under Sections 265, 266, 419 and 420 of
Indian Penal Code and 3/7 of Essential
Commodities Act, Police Station-Badausa,
District-Banda and summoning order dated
25.10.2017 passed by Ist Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District-Banda in Case
No. 1660/IX/17.

3. The Applicant is a dealer of
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation having
its retail outlet in the name and style of
Pandey Filling Station, Badausa, DistrictBanda. An inspection at the site of the retail
outlet of the applicant was conducted on
14.6.2017 by a team of sales officer of
Indian Oil Corporation, Kanpur, Weights
and Measure Inspector, Nayab Tehsildar
and Police Administration. The inspection
team found that nosal no. 2 is giving out air
and nosal would not be checked but the
wire in the pulser seal of the unit was found
to be broken at the time of inspection.

4. A first information report dated
19.7.2017 was lodged by Supply Inspector
at Police Station-Badausa, District Banda
which was registered as Case Crime No.
0111 of 2017 under Sections 265, 266, 419,
420 of Indian Penal Code and under
Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act,
1955. The prosecution case arising out of
the above-mentioned first information
report is to the effect that the Chief
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow
by
letter
dated
2.5.2017
instructed to conduct inspection/raid at
diesel/petrol retail outlet by forming a
team. In pursuance thereof, the District
Magistrate
by
order
dated
3.5.2017
constituted an investigating team. The
aforesaid team conducted inspection on
14.6.2017 at Pandey Filling Station,
Badausa, Tehsil-Attara. As per the report of
the inspection team, dispensing units were
found installed at the pump. In the letter
dated 15.6.2017 of the Chief Secretary it
was directed that in respect of petrol/diesel
pumps where irregularities were found
during inspection/raid, case should be
registered under the relevant section of
various acts and action should be taken as
per various procedures. In the Pandey
Filling Station, Badausa, the wire of the
seal of the head of the pulser assembly
nosal no. 2 dispensing unit was found
broken. Since the wire of the pulser was
found broken, the same was seized by the
Investigating Team. Tehsil-Attara, giving
less quantity to consumers by breaking the
wire of the pulse seal of the pulse assembly
of nosal no. 2 of the dispensing unit
installed at the pump and thereby earning
unfair profit by selling diesel saved from
less measurement is clear violation of
various provisions of Government Order
dated 5.8.2008 and U.P. High Speed And
Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supply
and Distribution) Order 1981 as amended
and Motor Spirit And High Speed Diesel
(Regulation of Supply Distribution and
Prevention of Malpractice) Order 2005
which is punishable offence under Section
3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955
and relevant section of Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for applicant
submits that applicant was running a petrol
pump where a raid was conducted by the
officials. As per the prosecution case, the
dispensing unit seal was found tampered
and as a result of the same first information
report was lodged under Sections 265, 266,
419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act,
1955. Learned counsel for applicant further
submits that offence in respect of Sections
265 and 266 of Indian Penal Code would
not
be
attracted
in
the
facts
and
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances of the present case, more
particularly, in view of Section 51 of the
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 which stood
fortify by the judgement of the Supreme
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Versus
Aman Mittal (2019) 19 SCC 740. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submits
that applicant had made a complaint dated
03.06.2017 with regard to the dispensing
unit, which is annexed at page no.76 of the
affidavit filed in support of the present
application, and the same was resolved on
08.06.2017. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that raid was
conducted on 14.06.2017. Learned counsel
for the applicant further submits that
applicant had bonafidely raised a complaint
before the Corporation and as such the
applicant cannot be prosecuted in respect of
any failure of the dispensing unit. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submits
that
applicant
has
suffered
civil
consequences as a result of termination of
the dealership and as such the criminal
proceedings would not be tenable under
law.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
submitted that seal was found to be
tempered on inspection by the Inspection
Team in respect of the petrol pump of the
applicant. Learned A.G.A. could not
dispute the fact that provisions of Sections
265 and 266 of Indian Penal Code could
not be the ground for prosecution of the
applicant in view of the judgement of the
Supreme Court in Aman Mittal (supra).
However, learned A.G.A. submits that
other sections being Sections 419 and 420
of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 would be
attracted as there is no bar proceeding in
respect of the same. Learned A.G.A.
further submits that on inspection it was
found that applicant was selling the fuel
while the dispensing unit seal was broken
which is against law.

7. The applicant is being prosecuted
under Sections 265, 266, 419, 420 of Indian
Penal Code and under Section 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As per
the
prosecution
case,
the
raid
was
conducted on 14.6.2017 at the petrol pump
of applicant where the wire of seal of the
head of the pulser assembly nosal no. 2 of
dispensing unit was found broken. Since
the wire of the pulser was found broken,
the said was seized by the Investigating
Team. It is also alleged in the first
information report that the consumers are
being given less quantity by breaking the
wire of the pulser seal of the pulser
assembly nosal no. 2 of the dispensing unit
installed at the pump and tampering with it
and thereby earning unfair profit. The
applicant in paragraph 19 of the affidavit
filed in support of the Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has admitted that the
dealership agreement entered into between
the
applicant
and
the
Petroleum
Corporation has been terminated by order
dated 24.7.2017. The aforesaid termination
order records that the seal wire of nosal no.
2 was found broken and no possible
explanation has been provided for the
irregularities observed at the outlet.

8. Learned counsel for applicant has
submitted that the provisions of Section
265 and 266 of the Indian Penal Code
would not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances
of
the
case,
more
particularly, in view of the provisions of
Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The provision
of Section 265 and 266 of Indian Penal
Code are as follows :-

"265. Fraudulent use of false
weight
or
measure.-Whoever,
10 All. Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
1113
fraudulently uses any false weight or false
measure
of
length
or
capacity,
or
fraudulently uses any weight or any
measure of length or capacity as a different
weight or measure from what it is, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
one year, or with fine, or with both.

266. Being in possession of false
weight or measure. -Whoever is in
possession of any instrument for weighing,
or of any weight, or of any measure of
length or capacity, which he knows to be
false, intending that the same may be
fraudulently used, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to one year, or with
fine, or with both."

9. The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 is
promulgated to establish and enforce
standards
of
weights
and
measures,
regulate trade and commerce in weights,
measures and other goods which are sold or
distributed by weight, measure or number
and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.

10.
Section
2(g)
of
the
Legal
Metrology Act, 2009 defines "Legal
Metrology" as under :-

"Legal Metrology" means that
part of metrology which treats units of
weighment and measurement, methods of
weighment and measurement and weighing
and measuring instruments, in relation to
the
mandatory
technical
and
legal
requirements which have the object of
ensuring public guarantee from the point of
view of security and accuracy of the
weighments and measurements."

11. Section 3 of Legal Metrology Act,
2009 provides that provisions of Legal
Metrology
Act
shall
have
effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith contained in any enactment other
than this Act or in any instrument having
effect by virtue of any enactment other than
this Act.

12. Further, Section 26 of Legal
Metrology Act, 2009 provides whoever
tampers with, or alters in any way, any
reference standard, secondary standard or
working standard or increases or decreases
or alters any weight or measure with a view
to deceiving any person or knowing or
having reason to believe that any person is
likely to be deceived thereby, except where
such alteration is made for the correction of
any error noticed therein on verification,
shall be punished with fine which may
extend to fifty thousand rupees and for the
second and subsequent offence with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than six months but which may extend
to one year or with fine or with both.

13. Section 28 of Legal Metrology
Act, 2009 provides that whoever makes any
transaction,
deal
or
contract
in
contravention of the standards of weights
and measures specified under section 10
shall be punished with fine which may
extend to ten thousand rupees and for the
second
or
subsequent
offence,
with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one year, or with fine, or with both.

14. Section 30 of Legal Metrology
Act, 2009 further provides penalty for
transactions in contravention of standard
weight or measure. The provision of
Section 30 of the Legal Metrology Act,
2009 is quoted herein below :-
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"30. Penalty for transactions in
contravention of standard weight or
measure. -Whoever-

(a) in selling any article or thing
by weight, measure or number, delivers or
causes to be delivered to the purchaser any
quantity or number of that article or thing
less than the quantity or number contracted
for or paid for; or

(b) in rendering any service by
weight, measure or number, renders that
service less than the service contracted for
or paid for; or

(c) in buying any article or thing
by weight, measure or number, fraudulently
receives, or causes to be received any
quantity or number of that article or thing
in excess of the quantity or number
contracted for or paid for; or

(d) in obtaining any service by
weight, measure or number, obtains that
service in excess of the service contracted
for or paid for, shall be punished with fine
which may extend to ten thousand rupees,
and; for the second or subsequent offence,
with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with
both."

15. Section 51 of Legal Metrology
Act, 2009 further provides that provisions
of Indian Penal Code and the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 insofar as such
provision relating to offences with regard
to weight or measure, shall not apply to any
offence which is punishable under the
Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

16. The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 is
a special act providing for offences and
penalties for violation of provisions of Act
of 2009. Section 3 of Legal Metrology Act,
2009 provides that provisions of Legal
Metrology
Act
shall
have
effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith contained in any enactment other
than this Act or in any instrument having
effect by virtue of any enactment other than
this Act.

17. The Supreme Court in Aman
Mittal (supra) has considered the effect of
Section 51 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 in
terms of Indian Penal Code and observed as
under :-

"32. The question required to be
examined is whether all the offences under
IPC are excluded in view of Section 3 of the
Act or only the offences relating to the
weights and measures as are contained in
Chapter XIII IPC alone stand excluded in
view of Section 51 of the Act.

33....

34. In the light of principles laid
down, we find that Section 3 of the Act
completely overrides the provisions of
Chapter XIII of IPC in respect of the
offences and penalties imposable for
violations of the provisions of the Act, it
being a special Act. Therefore, if the
offence is disclosed to be made out under
the provisions of the Act, an accused
cannot be charged for the same offence
under Chapter XIII of IPC. Reading of
Section 51 of the Act makes it clear that the
provisions of IPC insofar as they relate to
offences with regard to weight or measure,
shall not apply to any offence which is
punishable under the Act. Therefore, the
provisions of IPC which relate to offences
with regard to weight and measure as
contained in Chapter XIII of IPC alone will
not apply. No person can be charged for an
10 All. Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
1115
offence relating to weight or measure
falling under Chapter XIII of IPC in view
of the provisions of the Act."

18. Learned A.G.A. for the State could
not dispute the fact that provisions of
Section 265 and 266 of the Indian Penal
Code will not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Learned A.G.A.
further has not disputed the fact that
provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009
would be applicable. Sections 265 and 266
of Indian Penal Code is contained in
Chapter XIII of the Indian Penal Code. In
view of the aforesaid law laid down by
Supreme Court in Aman Mittal (supra)
the prosecution of the applicant under
Section 265 and 266 of the Indian Penal
Code is not tenable under law.

19. Learned counsel for applicant
further submits that applicant had made a
complaint dated 3.6.2017 with regard to
dispensing unit and the aforesaid complaint
was restored on 8.6.2017. Learned counsel
for applicant submits that defect was a
mechanical defect which was rectified.

20. It is to be seen that as per the
prosecution case, seal of the dispensing unit
was found to be broken. The defence raised
by learned counsel for the applicant is a
question of evidence. The defence cannot
be
considered
at
this
stage,
more
particularly, when the inspection team
found the seal of the dispensing unit to be
broken. Such an issue can be raised by the
applicant in the trial and at this stage, it
would not be possible for this Court to hold
mini trial.

21. Learned counsel for the applicant
further urged that applicant has already
suffered civil consequences as a result of
termination of the dealership agreement
and as such the criminal proceedings not be
tenable under law.

22. It is to be seen that the termination
of the dealership agreement in pursuance to
the contract is a civil consequences,
however, where the allegations against the
applicant also attracts criminal provisions
of law then the accused is required under
law to be prosecuted for the offence
committed. Learned counsel for applicant
has not shown any law which bars the
criminal prosecution where the accused
persons
have
already
suffered
civil
consequences in respect of the same
transaction.

23. It is further to be noted that
applicant is also being proceeded under
Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code
and under Section 3/7 of Essential
Commodities Act. The scheme of Legal
Metrology Act, 2009 does not bar the
prosecution under the above-mentioned
sections. In this respect, the Supreme Court
in Aman Mittal (supra) has held that the
aforesaid offences are not covered by Legal
Metrology Act, 2009. Paragraph no. 35 of
aforesaid judgement is quoted hereinbelow
:-

"35. The scheme of the Act is for
the offences for use of weights and
measures which are non-standard and for
tampering with or altering any standards,
secondary standards or working standards
of any weight or measure. The Act does not
foresee any offence relating to cheating as
defined in Section 415 of IPC or the
offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471
of IPC. Similarly, an act performed in
furtherance
of
a
common
intention
disclosing an offence under Section 34 is
not covered by the provisions of the Act. An
offence disclosing a criminal conspiracy to
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
commit an offence which is punishable
under Section 120-B IPC is also not an
offence under the Act. Since such offences
are not punishable under the provisions of
the Act, therefore, the prosecution for such
offences could be maintained since the trial
of such offences is not inconsistent with any
of the provisions of the Act. Similar is the
provision in respect of the offences under
Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC as such
offences are not covered by the provisions
of the Act."

24. It is further to be noted that learned
counsel for the applicant has not put to
challenge the prosecution of the applicant
under Sections 419, 420 of Indian Penal
Code and under Section 3/7 of Essential
Commodities Act. As such, this Court does
not
find
any
legal
impediment
in
prosecution of the applicant in the aforesaid
sections.

25.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
circumstances and reasons, the prosecution
of the applicant under Section 265 and 266
of the Indian Penal Code are not tenable
under law and the summoning order dated
25.10.2017 passed by Ist Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Banda is partly
set aside to the extent it summons the
applicant under Sections 265 and 266 of the
Indian Penal Code. In respect of remaining
offences under Sections 419, 420 of Indian
Penal
Code
and
3/7
of
Essential
Commodities Act, the prosecution may go
on. It would be open for the Investigating
Agency/court concerned to charge the
accused for such offences or any other
offence by way of supplementary report or
at a subsequent stage during trial as
considered appropriate by the Investigating
Agency.

26. Accordingly, the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed.
--------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1116
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 433 of 2017

Piyush Parihar ...Appellant
Versus
Manuii @ Munni Devi & Anr.
...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Kedar Nath Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Abhishek Kumar, Ashish Kumar Gupta,
Rahul Sahai

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the plaintiff's suit for specific
performance of agreement to sell in question
was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the
Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Whether the plea of fraud and date of
knowledge made it a triable issue not to be
dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule
11(d) CPC.
3. Whether limitation is a mixed question of law
and fact requiring trial and evidence.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section 96, Order 7, Rule 11 - Limitation
Act, 1963 - Section - 17, 54: - First Appeal
U/section 96 of the CPC - challenging the
impugned judgment and decree - whereby
court below while allowing the defendant's
application moved under Order 7 Rule 11(d)
CPC barred the suit by limitation - Agreement to
sale-deed - executed by the defendants in
favour of the plaintiff-appellant in year 2007 -
plaintiff always remained ready and willing to
fulfil all the terms of the agreement - but,
defendants on false pretext, avoided to execute
the agreement - legal notices of 2010 and 2012