# Narendra @ Narendra Kumar Rajauriya v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 372
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-13
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 14524 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-narendra-kumar-rajauriya-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46335
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Section 200 - Examination of
complainant - The Negotiable instruments
Act, 1981 - Section 138 - legal position for
quashing of the proceedings at the initial
stage - Test to be applied by the court -
whether
uncontroverted
allegation
as
made prima facie establishes the offence
10 All. Narendra @ Narendra Kumar Rajauriya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
373
and the chances of ultimate conviction is
bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing criminal proceedings to
be continue - Power of High Court is very
wide
but
should
be
exercised
very
cautiously to do real and substantial
justice for which the court alone exists -
quashing of the criminal proceedings is an
exception than a rule. (Para - 9)

Two cheques issued in favour of opposite party
no.2 - signed by applicant - nowhere applicant
denied about his signatures or signature is
forged - applicant mentioned two cheques lost
- question of fact - cannot be interfered by this
Court at this stage - Magistrate summoned the
applicant under Section 138 N.I. A/C

HELD:-
High Court would not embark upon
an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial
Judge/Court. Interference at the threshold of
quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in
hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it
discloses prima facie commission of an offence.
No illegality in the summoning order. Applicant
was rightly summoned by the Court below.
(Para - 10,11)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which deals with all acts of violence at
public places and to provide for measures
to control its persistence and escalation and
also provides for recovery of damage by
constitution of claims tribunals.

31. The proceedings under the PDPP
Act are also distinct from matters which are
covered under the Revenue Code, and in
particular Section 67 thereof, which provides
procedure for eviction and recovery of
damages
on
account
of
unauthorized
occupation and use of land belonging to the
State under the management of Gaon Sabha.
The procedure provided there-under is
summary in nature and is purely a civil
remedy with no criminality attached. On the
other hand, any act which constitutes a
"mischief" within the meaning of Section
2(a) of the PDPP Act, wherein the definition
of the word "mischief" has been assigned the
same meaning as in Section 425 of Penal
Code, and would relate to any act which
causes destruction of any property, or any
change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, or affects it injuriously, and the
property is a "public property" as described
under Section 2(b) of the PDPP Act, the same
would constitute a criminal offence under
Section 3 and would be visited by penal
consequences, namely, imprisonment and
fine.

32. The provisions under the Revenue
Code, the Act, 2020 and the PDPP Act
would, therefore be seen to operate in
different fields with there being no bar in
respect of the institution of proceedings under
the aforesaid enactments separately or
simultaneously in respect of matters covered
thereunder.

33. The criminal proceedings, which
have been initiated in the present case
pursuant
to
FIR
lodged
under
the
provisions of the PDPP Act, thus cannot be
held to be vitiated for the reason that in
respect of the allegations relating to
encroachment/damage to Gaon Sabha land,
only proceedings for eviction and recovery
of damages can be initiated under the
provisions of the Revenue Code and no
criminal proceedings for causing damage or
destruction of public property can be
initiated under the PDPP Act.

34. No other ground was urged.

35. The application under Section 482
of the Code accordingly stands dismissed.
----------
(2021)10ILR A372
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 14524 of 2021

Narendra @ Narendra Kumar Rajauriya
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajay Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Section 200 - Examination of
complainant - The Negotiable instruments
Act, 1981 - Section 138 - legal position for
quashing of the proceedings at the initial
stage - Test to be applied by the court -
whether
uncontroverted
allegation
as
made prima facie establishes the offence
10 All. Narendra @ Narendra Kumar Rajauriya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
373
and the chances of ultimate conviction is
bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing criminal proceedings to
be continue - Power of High Court is very
wide
but
should
be
exercised
very
cautiously to do real and substantial
justice for which the court alone exists -
quashing of the criminal proceedings is an
exception than a rule. (Para - 9)

Two cheques issued in favour of opposite party
no.2 - signed by applicant - nowhere applicant
denied about his signatures or signature is
forged - applicant mentioned two cheques lost
- question of fact - cannot be interfered by this
Court at this stage - Magistrate summoned the
applicant under Section 138 N.I. A/C

HELD:-
High Court would not embark upon
an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial
Judge/Court. Interference at the threshold of
quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in
hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it
discloses prima facie commission of an offence.
No illegality in the summoning order. Applicant
was rightly summoned by the Court below.
(Para - 10,11)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Hari Ram & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
,2016(6) ADJ (NOC)27

2. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1960 S.C. 866

3. State of Haryana Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)426

4. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192

5. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)
283

6. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar,
2002 (44) ACC 168

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ajay Srivastava,
learned counsel for the applicant and
learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.

2. This application U/S 482 CrPC has
been filed for quashing the summoning
order dated 9.4.2019 as well as proceedings
of Case No.3311 of 2018 (Sachin Sharma
Vs.
Narendra)
under
Section
138
Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station
Nawabad, District Jhansi pending before
the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi.

3. The brief facts of the case is that
opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint
case, under section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act bearing Case No.3311 of
2018 (Sachin Sharma Vs. Narendra Kumar
Rajauriya), P.S. Nawabad District Jhansi
before the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Jhansi against the
applicant on 24.12.2018 alleging that the
applicant is a neighbour of opposite party
no.2 and opposite party no.2 has given
Rs.7,70,000/- for the construction of the
house to the applicant and when he
requested to return the said amount, the
applicant refused. Thereafter on several
requests were made by opposite party no.2,
the applicant under pressure of some
relatives has given a cheque of Rs.3 lacs
bearing cheque No.365164 and another
cheque of Rs.4,70 lacs bearing cheque
No.365165
both
cheques
are
dated
13.11.2018 of State Bank of India, Branch
Railway Station, Jhansi. A copy of the
aforesaid two cheques are annexed at page
no.24 of the affidavit filed in support of the
application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the
statement of opposite party no.2, under
section 200 Cr.P.C was recorded and the
applicant was summoned by the Court
below vide order dated 09.04.2019. It was
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also submitted by the learned counsel for
the applicant that he was granted bail on
17.01.2020 by the Court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the applicant has
neither issued any cheque nor any amount
for opposite party no.2 is due against the
applicant and six cheques were lost
including the present two cheques and
opposite party no.2 with malafide intention
presented two cheques before the bank for
its withdrawal. No amount, as such, is due
against the applicant and the summoning
order is bad in the eyes of law. He has also
placed reliance of the judgment of this
Court in the case of Hari Ram and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2016(6) ADJ (NOC)27.

5. Per contra, learned AGA has
submitted that the summoning order was
rightly passed by the Court below. There
was no averment made in the affidavit filed
in support of the application U/S 482
Cr.P.C that the applicant has not signed the
aforesaid two cheques, which were given in
the name of opposite party no.2. The only
story carved out by the applicant is that the
above two cheques were lost along with
other four cheques that story cannot be
believed. As per averments made in the
complaint case, the opposite party no.2 has
given the amount to the applicant for
construction of his house and this fact was
never disputed by the applicant. The
summoning order is rightly passed by the
Court below.

6.

Considering
the
arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the record, this
Court finds that the two cheques issued in
favour of the opposite party no.2 for a sum
of Rs.3 lacs and Rs.4.70 lacs (total amount
of Rs.7.70 lacs) were signed by the
applicant and nowhere the applicant has
denied about his signatures that he has not
issued these cheques or that the signature is
forged. The story, as mentioned by the
applicant, that the aforesaid two cheques
were lost along with other four cheques
cannot be believed and it is totally question
of fact which cannot be interfered by this
Court at this stage. The learned Magistrate
has rightly summoned the applicant under
Section 138 N.I. Act vide order dated
9.4.2019 and there is no illegality in the
order.

7. From the perusal of the materials
on record and looking into the facts of the
case and after considering the arguments
made at the bar, it does not appear that no
offence has been made out against the
applicant.

8. At the stage of issuing process the
court below is not expected to examine and
assess in detail the material placed on
record, only this has to be seen whether
prima facie offence is disclosed or not. The
Apex Court has also laid down the
guidelines where the criminal proceedings
could be interfered and quashed in exercise
of its power by the High Court in the
following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State
of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of
Haryana
Vs.
Bhajanlal,
1992
SCC
(Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P.
Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv)
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.
Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

9. From the aforesaid decisions the
Apex Court has settled the legal position
for quashing of the proceedings at the
initial stage. The test to be applied by the
court
is
to
whether
uncontroverted
10 All. Smt. Harvati & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
375
allegation as made prima facie establishes
the offence and the chances of ultimate
conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing criminal
proceedings to be continue. In S.W.
Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar,
2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the
criminal proceedings is an exception than a
rule. The inherent powers of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself
envisages three circumstances under which
the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-
(i) to give effect an order under the Code,
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the
court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice. The power of High Court is very
wide
but
should be
exercised
very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice
for which the court alone exists.

10. The High Court would not embark
upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial
Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold
of quashing of the criminal proceedings in
case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional
as it discloses prima facie commission of an
offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing
of summoning order as well as proceeding is
refused. There is no merit in this application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicant
has ample opportunity to raise all the
objections at the appropriate stage.

11. The judgement cited by the applicant
is distinguishable on the facts of the present
case. No other ground has been taken by the
learned counsel for the applicant except the
cheques were lost. The Court does not find
any illegality in the summoning order. The
applicant was rightly summoned by the Court
below.

12. Accordingly, this application U/S
482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2021)10ILR A375
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ A No. 3151 of 2021

Smt. Harvati & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandranshu Gour

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Suresh Singh

A. Service Law - Dying-in-Harness Rules,
1974 - Section 2(a) - Compassionate
Appointment - More than 10 years in
service - Dismissal on the ground that
their services are no more required -
Validity challenged - Held, the State
Government
in
discharge
of
its
constitutional obligations is bound to act
as a model employer - It do not have any
license to continue to irregularly employ
for years together without granting them
any benefits and security - High Court set
aside dismissal order holding it wholly
arbitrary and illegal. (Para 14 and 16)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. U.O.I. & ors. Vs K.P. Tiwari; (2003) 9 SCC
129
2. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P.
Lucknow & ors. Vs Smt. Suman Singh & anr.;
2011 (2), AWC 2043
3. Ravi Karan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 1999
(2) AWC 976
4. Saroj Kumar Vs St. of U.P.; LAWS (ALL) 2019,
11 267