# Manth Lal & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1046
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 7745 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rajiv Lochan Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manth-lal-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52611
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

transaction constitute offences under Sections
420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, or are purely civil in
nature
warranting
quashing
of
criminal
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406,
504, 506 - Land Revenue Act - Section -
34 - Application under Section 482 CrPC - for
quashing of entire criminal proceedings - arising
out of Case Crime - dispute regarding
non-payment of balance sale consideration
11 All. Manth Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1047
under registered sale deed - held - registered
sale deed carries presumption of validity,
allegations
of
diminished
mental
capacity
unsupported, dispute purely civil in nature -
offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot
co-exist - allegations under Sections 504 and
506 IPC found exaggerated, made only to
enhance gravity - consequently, Criminal Case,
Chargesheet and cognizance order are quashed
- application allowed.(Para - 26, 27, 28)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand (2025
LiveLaw SC 950) -Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v.
State of U.P. (2024) 10 SCC 690 -M/s Shikhar
Chemicals
v.
State
of
U.P.
(SLP
(Crl.)
No.11445/2025) - Radheyshyam v. State of
Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.3020/2024) -
Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine
SC 951).

LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 420, 406,
504, 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.),
Section 482 - Land Revenue Act, Section 34

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
Sale deed dispute - Civil vs. Criminal nature of
dispute - Cheating and criminal breach of trust -
Non-payment
of
balance
consideration
-
Presumption of registered document - Threats
and abuse allegations.

CASE ARISING FROM
Criminal Case No.1837 of 2015 (State vs. Manth
Lal and others) - Chargesheet No.106/2015
dated 30.06.2015 - Case Crime No.103/2015,
P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi - FIR registered
under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Applicants: Shri Anil Kumar Verma,
P.K. Singh, Prabhakant Singh, Suraj Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Parties: Shri Shashi Dhar
Pandey, Learned AGA.

## Text

1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
BNSS and summoned the applicant without
providing him an opportunity of hearing
provided under 1st provisio of Section
223(1)
BNSS,
and
also
erroneously
proceeded
as
trial
of
summons-case
instituted on police report rather than
complaint.

53.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussion, the impugned cognizance-cumsummoning
order
dated
11.10.2024
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate is
hereby quashed and set aside. The matter
is remanded to the learned Judicial
Magistrate, who shall pass a fresh order in
conformity with the Explanation to Section
2(1)(h) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Magistrate
shall treat the police report (charge-sheet),
insofar as it discloses the commission of a
non-cognizable offence, as a "complaint,"
and shall thereafter proceed strictly in
accordance with law and in terms of the
observations made by this Court in the
preceding
paragraphs.
(Emphasis
on
paragraph nos.14 and 26)

54. This Court further finds that the
explanation submitted by the learned
Judicial Magistrate to be satisfactory to
some extent; however, the Magistrate is
directed to exercise greater caution in
future while passing summoning orders.
The Magistrate shall bear in mind that the
act of summoning an accused constitutes
merely the taking of judicial notice of the
material placed before the Court in the
form of a charge-sheet or complaint, and
does not amount to any determination of
guilt or innocence.

55. Further, all Magistrates/Presiding
Officers shall scrupulously comply with the
directions issued by this Court, particularly
those
mandating
that
their
name,
designation, and judicial ID be clearly
mentioned below their signatures on every
order passed by them, in conformity with
the
Circulars
dated
23.08.2018
and
19.07.2023 issued by the Registrar General
of this High Court pursuant to orders
passed in judicial proceedings.

56. With the aforesaid observations,
the present application stands disposed of.
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1046
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7745 of 2016

Manth Lal & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Anil Kumar Verma, P.K. Singh, Prabhakant
Singh, Suraj Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether allegations of non-payment of balance
sale consideration in a registered sale deed
transaction constitute offences under Sections
420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, or are purely civil in
nature
warranting
quashing
of
criminal
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406,
504, 506 - Land Revenue Act - Section -
34 - Application under Section 482 CrPC - for
quashing of entire criminal proceedings - arising
out of Case Crime - dispute regarding
non-payment of balance sale consideration
11 All. Manth Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1047
under registered sale deed - held - registered
sale deed carries presumption of validity,
allegations
of
diminished
mental
capacity
unsupported, dispute purely civil in nature -
offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot
co-exist - allegations under Sections 504 and
506 IPC found exaggerated, made only to
enhance gravity - consequently, Criminal Case,
Chargesheet and cognizance order are quashed
- application allowed.(Para - 26, 27, 28)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand (2025
LiveLaw SC 950) -Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v.
State of U.P. (2024) 10 SCC 690 -M/s Shikhar
Chemicals
v.
State
of
U.P.
(SLP
(Crl.)
No.11445/2025) - Radheyshyam v. State of
Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.3020/2024) -
Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine
SC 951).

LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 420, 406,
504, 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.),
Section 482 - Land Revenue Act, Section 34

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
Sale deed dispute - Civil vs. Criminal nature of
dispute - Cheating and criminal breach of trust -
Non-payment
of
balance
consideration
-
Presumption of registered document - Threats
and abuse allegations.

CASE ARISING FROM
Criminal Case No.1837 of 2015 (State vs. Manth
Lal and others) - Chargesheet No.106/2015
dated 30.06.2015 - Case Crime No.103/2015,
P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi - FIR registered
under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Applicants: Shri Anil Kumar Verma,
P.K. Singh, Prabhakant Singh, Suraj Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Parties: Shri Shashi Dhar
Pandey, Learned AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Lochan
Shukla, J.)

1. As per the office report dated
04.08.2017, notice has been served on the
opposite party No.2 through her heir.
Despite notice having been served upon
opposite party No.2, no one has put in
appearance nor has any counter affidavit
been filed.

2. As the matter is quite old, the Court
is proceeding to decide the application on
its own merits, without any further notice
to the opposite party No.2.

3. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Verma,
Learned counsel for the applicants and Shri
Shashi Dhar Pandey, Learned AGA for the
State.

4. Shri Verma submits that the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1837 of
2015 (State vs. Manth Lal and others),
including the Chargesheet No.106/2015
dated 30.06.2015 filed in Case Crime
No.103/2015 under Sections 420, 406, 504,
506 IPC, P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi
are illegal and do not make out any
cognizable offence against the applicants
and deserve to be quashed. He further
submits that the offences under Sections
420 and 406 IPC cannot co-exist and filing
of a chargesheet against the applicants in
the above-mentioned sections is illegal. He
further submits that the Learned Magistrate
while taking cognizance has also not
applied its mind and summoned the
applicants without considering the effect of
the implication of the applicants under
Section 406 and 420 IPC simultaneously.
He further submits that this dispute is
essentially a civil dispute, which hinges on
non payment of balance amount towards
the registered sale deed and the same does
not attract any penal provision and the
proceedings can be quashed, as no offence
is made out.
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned AGA, on the other hand,
submits that there is no proof of payment
beyond the payments of Rs.2,87,000/-
admitted
by
the
informant
and
the
passbooks and affidavits filed by the
applicants to support the payment of the
balance amount to the opposite party no.2
and her husband cannot be taken into
account at this stage and is a matter for
consideration before the Trial Court. Such
finding of fact cannot be recorded in an
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. Learned AGA,
however, could not dispute the fact that an
offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC
cannot co-exist.

6. The FIR lodged by the opposite
party No.2 in this case, on the basis of an
Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
dated 31.03.2015, speaks of the husband of
the opposite party No.2 executing a sale
deed with respect to property situated in
Arazi No.540 amounting to one biswa. It is
further stated that an agreement to sell
dated 19.12.2011 was executed on payment
of Rs.75,000/-, which was duly registered
at Bahi No.1, Zild no.5048, Page No.315 to
334 at Serial No.6793 before the Sub
Registrar. In the said agreement to sell, the
value of the property was shown to be Rs.2
Lakhs. It has further been alleged that the
husband of the informant was illiterate and
he was promised that the rest of the amount
would be paid within seven days from the
date of the sale deed.

7. It is further submitted that on
04.02.2014 the accused-applicants took the
son and the husband of the informant to the
Court where an alleged fake document dated
04.02.2014 was prepared, concealing the
earlier agreement to sell for Arazi nos.540,
541, area 291.97 sq. mtrs. and a sale deed
was got executed. It is further stated in the
FIR that Rs.2,12,000/- was paid and
Rs.75,000/- that had been paid earlier, total
amounted to Rs.2,87,000/-, the remaining
balance amount of Rs.3,48,000/- was to be
paid at home to the husband of the informant.
It is further alleged that on coming back
home, when the husband of the informant
asked for the rest of his money, he was told
that Rs.75,000/- that had been paid earlier,
interest was accruing thereon and the entire
money amounted to the interest accrued and
no other amount was left to be paid. It is also
alleged that the husband of the informant was
abused and sent away. Further allegation is
that on the basis of the sale deed, mutation
was also made in the revenue records by the
accused persons on the strength of their
money power. It is further alleged that when
the informant inspected the agreement to sell
on 28.02.2015, then she found out that
forgery has been committed and the husband
of the informant was cheated and the sale
deed was got executed after concealing the
factum of the agreement to sell.

8. Another incident of 12.03.2015 at
about 12 PM has been mentioned in the
FIR,
where
the
accused
persons
alongwith two unknown persons, came
to the house of the informant, abused her
and threatened her to withdraw her
objection and give the land to the
applicants or else she alongwith her
family would be buried on the said land.
This incident is said to have been
witnessed
by
certain
witnesses
mentioned in the FIR itself.

9. On such assertions, the police case
came to be registered on the basis of an
Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, which was
registered as Case Crime No.103 of 2015
under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC. The
Police, after investigation is said to have
submitted a chargesheet against the two
applicants, who have now been summoned.
11 All. Manth Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1049

10. A perusal of the material filed on
the record would also indicate that vide
order dated 09.04.2015, the objection filed
by the husband of the opposite party No.2
to the mutation of the Applicants name on
the property in question was rejected by the
Naib Tehsildar, Shivpur, Varanasi under
Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. A
copy of the sale deed has also been
annexed with the Application U/s 482
Cr.P.C., which indicates that the registered
sale deed was executed for a total sale
consideration of Rs.6,35,000/-. In the
chargesheet, the police have arrayed the
son of the opposite party No.2 and Shri
Ram Vikas Singh as witnesses for the
prosecution, who were also witnesses of the
registered sale deed. Imputation in the FIR
is to the husband of the opposite party No.2
being slightly mentally disabled. However,
no such imputation has been made to the
mental capacity of the son of the opposite
party No.2.

11. A perusal of the statement of Suraj
Sharma, the son of the informant, would
indicate that he also states that he was
taken advantage of. However, he attests to
the due execution of the sale deed. The
other witness is the brother of the applicant
No.2. In the entire material on record, it is
nowhere denied that the sale deed was duly
executed. The only complaint, which is
being raised, is that as per the promise, the
balance amount of Rs.3,48,000/- has not
been paid.

12. I have perused the material on
record and I find that the sale deed was
executed by the husband of the first
informant with his son as one of the
witnesses. Such sale deed has quiet
belatedly been challenged by filing an
original suit for cancellation of the said sale
deed
on
08.07.2022
through
O.S.
No.830/2022, in which in paragraph Nos.6
and 7 of the plaint, the following assertions
have been made:-

"6- यह मक प्रमतवादी ने दबांग एवां मायाबी सख्स है
सामजश के तहत अपने गोल के अन्य सख्स ज्ञानप्रकाश मसांह को
ममला मलया और वादी के साथ मदनाांक 31.12.2013 को
कचहरी आकर जहााँ प्रमतवादी के लोग ज्ञानप्रकाश के साथ अपने
अमधवक्ता के मौजूद रहे अपने साथ मेरे अनपढ़ पुत्र को भी बैठाये
रहे।

7- यह मक गहरी सामजश के तहत मेरी अन्य
आराजी नां० 541 रकबा 165.3 वगटमीटर जो मववामदत सट्टे में
नहीं थी को आ०न० 540 रकबा 126.4 में ममलाकर कुल
291.97 वगटमीटर का पत्र बहक प्रमतवादीगण मबना बादी को
बताये तहरीर करवाकर मबक्रय मूल्य मवमलग 635000/-
मदखाकर मबक्रय पत्र पर वादी का हस्तािर करा मलया और रमजस्री
कायाटलय आकर धोखा धड़ी करके पांजीकरण करा मलया और वादी
को कोई रकम बरवक्त बैनामा नहीं दी गयी थी और न ही वादी ने
कोई रकम प्राप्त मकया था। सम्पूणट कायटवाही मबना जानकारी वादी
हुई।"

13. The above suit Shri Verma
submits is barred by limitation. However
that is not a question for this Court to
decide.
Still,
while
considering
the
challenge to the proceedings under Section
482 Cr.P.C., pleadings filed by the husband
of the informant before the Civil Court,
alleging the same cause of action as is the
subject matter of the police investigation,
can be taken note of by this Court in
exercise of its powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Once due execution of the sale
deed is not denied, a presumption is raised
in favour of a registered document.

14. Furthermore, diminished mental
capacity is being set up as a ground for
cheating the informant's husband whereas
no material to substantiate such diminished
mental capacity has been brought on
record. The fact that the son of the
informant is a witness to the sale deed and
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has made his signatures shows that he is
not illiterate. In his statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C., he has not denied making the
said signatures nor does he state that he can
only make his signatures and otherwise
cannot read. The material relating to
diminished mental capacity has not been
brought on record, the literacy or otherwise
of the witness, who is the son of the vendor
has also not been clearly brought forward
by the police in its investigation. In such
circumstances, the presumption in favour
of a duly executed sale deed, which is a
registered document, is enforced.

15. Shri Verma by referring to certain
bank
statements
has
contended
that
payment has already been made prior to the
execution of the sale deed, for which he
refers to the statement of accounts annexed
as Annexure no.1 to the supplementary
affidavit filed in the Court today, in which
two transactions of Rs.1,50,000/- and
Rs.1,40,000/-, which have been obtained by
the applicant No.1 from his account in
cash, are said to have been withdrawn,
which led to payment of cash amount on
10.06.2013 and 11.06.2013 to the husband
of the opposite party No.2.

16. Learned AGA, on the other hand,
contends that these documents, which have
been filed by the accused cannot be taken
into consideration as the same is part of the
defence of the accused, which at the time of
quashing of proceedings may not be looked
into by this Court.

17. Be that as it may, this Court is not
embarking upon a finding whether sale
consideration was duly paid or not. It,
however, is clear from the material on
record that the sale deed was duly
executed. The only dispute, which is being
raised, is of non-payment of the balance
amount, which, as per the recital in the sale
deed, had already been paid. This to my
mind would not constitute a criminal
offence much less an offence under Section
406 or 420 IPC. Furthermore, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Arshad Neyaz Khan
Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another
reported in 2025 Live Law SC 950 and in
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Others
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 has clearly
held that an offence of 'criminal breach of
trust' and 'cheating' cannot co-exist. By no
stretch of imagination, non payment of
balance
amount
towards
a
sale
consideration can be said to be an
entrustment to attract the provisions of
Section 406 IPC.

18. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
M/s Shikhar Chemicals vs. The State of
U.P. and others, Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.11445 of 2025 on 04.08.2025, in
paragraphs No.11, 12, 13 and 14 has
clarified the Law as under:-

"11. The case of the respondent
no.2 as a complainant, is plain and simple.
He claims to be an unpaid seller.
According to him, he delivered goods in the
form of thread to the petitioner herein
worth Rs.52,34,385/- out of which an
amount of Rs.47,75,000/- came to be paid
to the complainant by the petitioner herein,
however, the balance amount has not been
paid, till this date.

12. It is for the recovery of the
balance amount that he thought fit to file a
criminal complaint and institute criminal
proceedings.
It
appears
that
the
complainant in the first instance tried to
lodge a FIR but the police declined to
register the FIR saying that it was purely a
civil dispute.
11 All. Manth Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1051

13. The Magistrate unfortunately
remained unmindful of the fact that even as
per the complainant's own say the case is
one of sale of goods and recovery of some
balance amount."

14. It was expected of the
Additional CJM to know that in a case of
sale transaction where is the question of
any entrustment of goods so as to bring the
case within the ambit of criminal breach of
trust punishable under Section 406 of the
IPC. This position of law came to be
explained by this Court almost six decades
back in the landmark decision titled "State
of
Gujarat
vs.
Jaswantlal
Nathalal"
reported in 1968 (2) SCR 408, wherein this
Court stated that a mere transaction of sale
cannot amount to an entrustment. We quote
the relevant observations made by this
Court as under:-

"8. The term "entrusted" found
in Section 405 IPC governs not only the
words "with the property" immediately
following it but also the words "or with any
dominion over the property" occurring
thereafter - see Velji Raghvaji Patel v.
State of Maharashtra [(1965) 2 SCR 429] .
Before there can be any entrustment there
must be a trust meaning thereby an
obligation annexed to the ownership of
property and a confidence reposed in and
accepted by the owner or declared and
accepted by him for the benefit of another
or of another and the owner. But that does
not mean that such an entrustment need
conform to all the technicalities of the law
of trust - see Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney
v. State of Bombay [[1956] SCR 483, 498500] . The expression "entrustment"
carries with it the implication that the
person handing over any property or on
whose behalf that property is handed over
to another, continues to be its owner.
Further the person handing over the
property must have confidence in the
person taking the property so as to create a
fiduciary relationship between them. A
mere transaction of sale cannot amount to
an entrustment. It is true that the
Government had sold the cement in
question to BSS solely for the purpose of
being
used
in
connection
with
the
construction work referred to earlier. But
that circumstance does not make the
transaction in question anything other than
a sale. After delivery of the cement, the
Government had neither any right nor
dominion over it. If the purchaser or his
representative had failed to comply with
the requirements of any law relating to
cement control, he should have been
prosecuted for the same. But we are unable
to hold that there was any breach of trust.

9. A case somewhat similar to the
one before us came up for consideration
before a Division Bench of the Calcutta
High Court in Satyendra Nath Mukherji v.
Emperor [ILR [1947] 1 Cal 97] . These are
the facts of that case. One Satya Sunder
Mitra was a contractor. He was granted a
permit by the Executive Engineer, A.R.P.
(Shelters),
construction
division,
to
purchase seven tons of cement from Balmer
Lawrie and Company. The permit was
granted on the condition that the cement
was to be used in the work connected with
the construction of shelters, which work he
had contracted to do for the Executive
Engineer. The finding in the case was that
with the help of an employee of Mitra and
Chaudhuri who were banians of Balmer
Lawrie and Company, six tons of cement
were diverted and disposed of for another
purpose. The trial court convicted Satya
Sunder Mitra under Section 406 IPC and
another for abetting the offence committed
by Satya Sunder Mitra. The High Court
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allowed their appeal, holding that there
was no entrustment of the cement in
question within the meaning of the term as
used in Section 405 of Indian Penal Code.
In the course of the judgment it was
observed:

"The permit was granted in
accordance with the system of control
established under the Defence of India
Rules, under which an order has been
issued by the Government of India
preventing selling agents such as Balmer
Lawrie and Company from delivering any
cement except under instructions from the
Government or from the Cement Adviser.
The transaction, so far as the contractor is
concerned, was one of purchase and the
property in the cement clearly passed to
him. No doubt he could not have obtained
the permit through the Executive Engineer
if it had not been intended that the cement
should be used for the purpose directed by
the Engineer, but, in our opinion, in no
sense can it be said that there was any
entrustment either of the property or of any
dominion over the property."

We are of the opinion that the
legal position is as explained in that
decision.

10. The decision of the Kings
Bench Division in King v. Grubb [[1915] 2
KB 683] relied on by Mr Dhebar learned
counsel for the appellant does not bear on
the question under consideration. Therein,
the factum of entrustment was not in
dispute. The only question of law that arose
for decision in that case was whether when
a property is entrusted to a company, and
the person directing and controlling the
company,
by
whose
instructions
the
property had passed into the possession of
the company, had converted the same
fraudulently, that person can be said to
have committed an offence under Section 1
of the Larceny Act, 1901. The court
answered that question in the affirmative.

11. ln view of our conclusion that
the prosecution has failed to prove the
entrustment pleaded, it is unnecessary to
consider whether on the material on record
it can be concluded that the respondent had
misappropriated
40
bags
of
cement
referred to earlier."

 (Emphasis supplied)"

19. Furthermore, for there to be an
element of cheating, there must be
deception. Section 415 of the IPC speaks as
under :-

"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'."

20. Section 420 IPC speaks as under:-

"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
11 All. Manth Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1053
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

21.The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Radheyshyam and others vs.
State of Rajasthan and another, Criminal
Appeal No.3020 of 2024, while considering
the ingredients of Section 420 and 406 IPC
has held as under:-

"7. Section 420, IPC provides
that:

"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."

For an offence under Section 420,
IPC, the following ingredients must be
present:

i. Cheating as defined under
Section 415, IPC, that is, there should be a
fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a
person;

ii. An intention to deceive; and

iii. 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.

8. Thus, cheating forms an
essential ingredient to constitute and
offence under Section 420, IPC. Further, to
constitute cheating as defined under
Section 415, IPC, it is necessary that a
fraudulent or dishonest inducement is done
and the deceived person is made to deliver
any property owing to the fraud. Section
415, IPC, defines 'cheating', as:

"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"."

11. For an offence punishable
under Section 406, IPC, the following
ingredients must exist:

i. The accused was entrusted with
property, or entrusted with dominion over
property;

ii. The accused had dishonestly
misappropriated or converted to their own
use that property, or dishonestly used or
disposed of that property or wilfully suffer
any other person to do so; and

iii.
Such
misappropriation,
conversion, use or disposal should be in
violation
of
any
direction
of
law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is
to be discharged, or of any legal contract
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which the person has made, touching the
discharge of such trust."

22. Cheating by inducing delivery of
property would entail deception being
practised. The son of the informant being a
witness to the sale deed and the averments
made in the FIR being at variance to the
statement made in the civil suit in
paragraphs
referred
to
above
clearly
indicate that the son of the opposite party
No.2 was aware of the transaction and had
witnessed the sale deed. As has been
observed above diminished mental capacity
has not been demonstrated. Although the
civil suit does mention that the O.P. No.2's
husband was illiterate but diminished
mental capacity has not been pleaded
therein. Furthermore, given the fact that a
belated suit for cancellation of deed being
filed in which assertions at variance to the
complaint being made clearly demonstrate
that no deception was practised.

23. In such circumstances, I find that
no offence much less an offence of
cheating or criminal breach of trust is made
out.

24. Learned AGA has stressed that
apart from the offences under Sections 406
and 420 IPC, the offences under Sections
504 and 506 IPC are also made out against
the applicants.

25. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Mohd. Wajid vs. State of U.P., reported as
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 made the
following observations:-

"At this stage, we would like to
observe something important. Whenever an
accused comes before the Court invoking
either the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that
the
averments
made
in
the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between
the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but
is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as
the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on
hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered
over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of
11 All. Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. Suresh Chandra & Ors.
1055
wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged."

26. Thus, even though the offences
under Sections 504, 506 IPC may be
disclosed in the complaint, this Court can
always go behind the allegations and look
at all attending circumstances including
reading between the lines to conclude that a
genuine allegation has been made or one
which has been made only to suit the
prosecution version and enhance the
gravity of the offence.

27.
From
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances discussed above, I find that
the allegations under Sections 504 and 506
IPC have been made only to increase the
gravity of the offence.

28. Considering all the circumstances,
the material on the record and the law as
discussed above, I find that the entire
proceedings ofCriminal Case No.1837 of
2015 (State vs. Manth Lal and others),
including the Chargesheet No.106/2015
dated 30.06.2015 and cognizance order
dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6,
Varanasi in Case Crime No.103/2015 under
Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.
Shivpur, District Varanasi, deserve to be
quashed and are hereby quashed.

29. The Application is allowed.
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1055
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2555 of 2017
Vinay Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
Suresh Chandra & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Pankaj Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
C.S.C., S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Whether
overruling
of
Pune
Municipal
Corporation by Manoharlal only overrules the
precedential
value
of
Pune
Municipal
Corporation and does not reopen the dispute
between
the
applicant
and
the
Staterespondents and the State respondents are still
liable
to
comply
with
the
order
dated
27.07.2016 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.
62677 of 2015

Head Notes
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section
12- When a case is overruled, it is only its
binding nature as a precedent that is
taken away but the lis between the
parties is still deemed to have been
settled by the overruled case. Further, an
order or decree of a Court, even if wrong,
is binding on the parties until it is set
aside by an appellate court or through
other remedies provided in law- In the
present case the special leave petition
filed against the order dated 27.07.2016
passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 62677
of 2015 was dismissed by the Supreme
Court vide its order dated 12.09.2017. No
review or recall application was filed
either for review or for recall of the order
passed by the Supreme Court. The list
between the petitioner/applicant on one
hand and the State and its authorities on
the other hand had already attained
finality- One month further time to comply
with the order dated 27.07.2016.

Held- The failure of the State-respondents in
complying with the order dated 27.07.2016
passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 62677 of
2015 amounts to willful disobedience of the
Court and amounts to contempt for which they