# Madan Mohan Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1044
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-05
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 13275 of 2018
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/madan-mohan-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50915
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 200 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 415 & 420 -
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for
quashing of criminal proceedings - Complaint
case - applicant pleaded that the dispute
stemmed from a long-standing family conflict
over trust property originally managed by their
grandfather - Despite prior civil suits and a
compromise in a Civil Suit, the opposite party
later filed a criminal complaint case alleging
breach of that compromise - court observed
that, fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an
essential ingredient of the offence under section
415 IPC and in the present case element of
cheating is missing as there is allegation of
violation of agreement - held - no case is made
out under section 420 IPC is made out against
the applicant and a dispute of purely civil nature
between the parties has been converted into
criminal prosecution of the applicant at the
behest of opposite party no. 2, therefore, the
impugned criminal proceedings is quashed -
hence, the applicant stands allowed.
(Para - 8, 9)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1044
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 13275 of 2018

Madan Mohan Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 200 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 415 & 420 -
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for
quashing of criminal proceedings - Complaint
case - applicant pleaded that the dispute
stemmed from a long-standing family conflict
over trust property originally managed by their
grandfather - Despite prior civil suits and a
compromise in a Civil Suit, the opposite party
later filed a criminal complaint case alleging
breach of that compromise - court observed
that, fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an
essential ingredient of the offence under section
415 IPC and in the present case element of
cheating is missing as there is allegation of
violation of agreement - held - no case is made
out under section 420 IPC is made out against
the applicant and a dispute of purely civil nature
between the parties has been converted into
criminal prosecution of the applicant at the
behest of opposite party no. 2, therefore, the
impugned criminal proceedings is quashed -
hence, the applicant stands allowed.
(Para - 8, 9)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -
1. Gulam Mustafa Vs St. of Karn. (2023) SCC
online SC 603,

2. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St.
of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC online SC 315,

3. Archana Rana Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2021)
volume 3 SCC 751,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Udai Bhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed to quash the entire
proceedings
against
the
applicant
in
Complaint Case No. 2548, under Section
420 I.P.C., P.S. Hathras Gate, districtHathras, pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, as well as
summoning order dated 19.12.2017.

3. The contention of learned counsel
for the applicant is that applicant and
opposite party no. 2 are the grandsons of
late Netram Sharma, who during his
lifetime executed a registered trust deed on
01.01.1945 and the father of the applicant
was nominated as Manager of the aforesaid
trust, thereafter a registered will deed dated
20.11.1974 was executed by late Netram
Sharma, by which all managerial rights of
the aforesaid trust was given to Sri
Damodar Das (father of the applicant). It
was further provided in the aforesaid will
deed that heirs of Damodar Das will
continue to manage the affairs of the trust.
Subsequently, the opposite party no. 2 and
his brother started putting their claim over
the property of trust, denying the trust deed,
as well as will dated 20.11.1974. After the
death of Damodar Das, father of opposite
party no. 2 has filed a suit bearing Original
3 All. Madan Mohan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1045
Suit no. 48 of 1983 for declaration of
ownership
regarding
trust
property.
Subsequently, this suit was disposed of on
the basis of compromise entered into
between
the
parties
regarding
trust
property. Subsequently, when the the
opposite party no. 2 had started interfering
the applicant in the enjoyment of the
property in question, then the applicant has
filed Original Suit No. 201 of 2005 for
permanent injunction and declaration. The
said suit was decreed by order dated
19.02.2010, in which the applicant was
declared Manager of the trust and opposite
party no. 2 and his brother were injected
from transferring any part of the property
of the Dharamshala, though the aforesaid
judgment dated 19.02.2010 passed in Suit
No. 210 of 2005 was challenged by the
opposite party no. 2 in First Appeal No.
213 of 2010 but this Hon'ble Court did not
stay the judgment dated 19.02.2010 and
only order of status quo was passed. After
loosing the litigation, the opposite party no.
2 has filed impugned complaint on
19.06.2017 on the ground that applicant has
violated the terms of compromise entered
into between the parties in Suit No. 48 of
1983 before the Munsif Court, Hathras.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further contended that from the perusal
of the impugned complaint, no case under
section 420 I.P.C. is made out against the
applicant and the ingredients of cheating as
defined under Section 415 I.P.C. are
missing and there is no allegation that
applicant had fraudulently or dishonestly
induced to deliver any property.

5. From the perusal of the record, it
appears that specific case of opposite party
no. 2 in his complaint as well as in his
statement recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. is that though as per compromise
entered into between the parties, during
pendency of the Suit No. 48 of 1983, the
Dharamshala was given to opposite party
no. 2 but in violation of the aforesaid
compromise
deed
and
the
applicant
retained the same with malafide intention.
Therefore, even if the entire allegation of
the complaint as well statement of
complainant recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. are taken as true even then case
under Section 420 I.P.C. is not made out
against the applicant. The Apex Court in
number of judgments held that there is
tendency of the parties of converting a civil
litigation into criminal litigation. Hon'ble
Apex Court in Gulam Mustafa vs. State of
Karnataka (2023) SCC online SC 603
observed in paragraph 36, which reads as
under:

"What is evincible from the
extant case-law is that this Court has been
consistent in interfering in such matters
where purely civil disputes, more often
than not, relating to land and/or money
are given the colour of criminality, only
for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial
pressure on the party concerned, which,
we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the
process of the court. In the present case,
there is a huge, and quite frankly,
unexplained delay of over 60 years in
initiating dispute with regard to the
ownership of the land in question, and the
criminal case has been lodged only after
failure to obtain relief in the civil suits,
coupled with denial of relief in the interim
therein to the respondent no. 2/her family
members. It is evident that resort was now
being had to criminal proceedings which,
in the considered opinion of this Court, is
with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons
and is a clear case of vengeance."

6. Similarly Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021)
SCC online SC 315 in paragraph 60 of the
judgement, observed as under:

"In a given case, there may be
allegations of abuse of process of law by
converting a civil dispute into a criminal
dispute, only with a view to pressurise the
accused. Similarly, in a given case the
complaint itself on the face of it can be
said to be barred by law. The allegations
in the FIR/complaint may not at all
disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence. In such cases and in exceptional
cases with circumspection, the High Court
may
stay
the
further
investigation.
However, at the same time, there may be
genuine
complaints/FIRs
and
the
police/investigating agency has a statutory
obligation/right/duty to enquire into the
cognizable offences. Therefore, a balance
has to be struck between the rights of the
genuine complainants and the FIRs
disclosing commission of a cognizable
offence and the statutory obligation/duty
of the investigating agency to investigate
into the cognizable offences on the one
hand and those innocent persons against
whom the criminal proceedings are
initiated which may be in a given case
abuse of process of law and the process.
However, if the facts are hazy and the
investigation has just begun, the High
Court would be circumspect in exercising
such powers and the High Court must
permit the investigating agency to proceed
further with the investigation in exercise
of its statutory duty under the provisions
of the Code. Even in such a case the High
Court has to give/assign brief reasons why
at this stage the further investigation is
required to be stayed. The High Court
must appreciate that speedy investigation
is the requirement in the criminal
administration of justice."

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Archana Rana vs. State of U.P. and
another, (2021) volume 3 SCC 751
observed in paragraph 7 & 8 for making
out of a case under Section 420 I.P.C.
There must be element of cheating since
beginning. In paragraph 7 & 8 in the
judgment of Archana Rana (supra) is
being quoted as below:

"7.
Having
heard
learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent-State and
having gone through the averments in the
complaint and the chargesheet, even if the
averments made in the complaint are
taken on their face, they do not constitute
the ingredients necessary for the offence
under Sections 419 & 420 IPC. As
observed and held by this Court in the
case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy (supra),
the ingredients to constitute an offence
under Section 420 are as follows:

i) a person must commit the
offence of cheating under Section 415;
and

ii) 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. Thus, cheating is an
essential ingredient for an act to constitute
an offence under Section 420 IPC."

8. "Cheating" is defined under
Section 415 of the IPC. The ingredients to
constitute an offence of cheating are as
follows:

i) there should be fraudulent or
dishonest inducement of a person by
deceiving
him:
3 All. Mohd. Azam Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1047

The person who was induced
should be intentionally induced to deliver
any property to any person or to consent
that any person shall retain any property,
or the person who was 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.

Thus,
a
fraudulent
or
dishonest
inducement is an essential ingredient of
the offence under Section 415 IPC. A
person who dishonestly induced any
person to deliver any property is liable for
the offence of cheating. "

8. As per the observation of the Apex
Court as mentioned in Archana Rana's
case, for making out a case under Section
420 I.P.C., there must be element of
cheating as defined under Section 415
I.P.C., therefore, cheating is an essential
ingredient for an act to constitute an
offence
under
Section
420
I.P.C.
Fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an
essential ingredient of the offence under
Section 415 I.P.C. In the present case
element of cheating is missing as there is
allegation of violation of agreement.

9. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, from the perusal
of the record and after considering the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, this Court is of the view that
no case under Section 420 I.P.C. is made
out against the applicant and a dispute of
purely civil nature between the parties has
been converted into criminal prosecution of
the applicant at the behest of opposite party
no. 2, therefore, the entire proceedings of
the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

10.

The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application stands allowed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1047
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISHRA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 14477 of 2023

Mohd. Azam Khan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 54-A, 161, 173(2), 362 &
482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
171-(g)
&
504
-
Representation
of
Peoples Act, 1951 - Section 125 -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Sections 3(1)(X) - Indian Evidence Act, -
Sections 65-B & 165 - Application U/s 482
Cr.P.C. - challenging two judicial orders related
to Special Sessions Trial - stemming from a
2007 incident - a derogatory speech violating
the model code of conduct and hurting
sentiments of a community - FIR - offence
under sections 504 and 171(G) of IPC and
under section 125 of the Representation of
Peoples Act, and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST
Act - investigation - a video cassette of the
speech was recovered - St.ments from officials
and the recording studio owner confirmed its
authenticity - forensic analysis of the cassette
was delayed due to procedural issues, and no
report was submitted and the cassette was not
included in the charge sheet but kept in the
case diary - Trial commenced - charge-sheet -
court later directed Applicant to provide a voice
sample to verify the cassette's contents, which
he unsuccessfully sought to recall through a
separate application - the Court upheld the