# Ram Chandra Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 614 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-09-24 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 1144 of 2010 - **Bench:** Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-chandra-verma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47280 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote A. Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981Section 138-quashing of entire criminal proceeding-accused seeking quashing of entire proceeding on the sole ground that the complainant had not appeared before the court and had not given his evidence u/s 200202 Cr.P.C.-The magistrate was required to observe the provisions contained in sections 200-202 Cr.P.C. does not appear to have any substance especially when section 145(1) of N.I. Act contemplates taking of the complainant evidence on affidavit not only in the trial but also in any inquiry or other proceeding-Section 145 of the Act has excluded the provisions of Code of Criminal procedure with regard to the manner in which evidence of the complainant is to be taken- plea taken by the applicant, is not made out.(Para 1 to 8) The petition is dismissed. (E-5) List of Cases cited: ## Text 614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision, in the case of Priti Saraf & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No(s). 296 of 2021 dated 10th March, 2021 has held as under :- "32. In the instant case, on a careful reading of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like to add that whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing such proceedings." 22. Thus it is manifestly evident from the law aforesaid that even if any case has been filed by the complainant/ informant before the consumer forum and the same has been dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy, the same could not clothe this case as a civil dispute. 23. In view of above, I am satisfied that the F.I.R. and statement of the complainant recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. prima facie discloses an offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined in Section 405 and punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and no illegality has been committed by the Court below in either taking the cognizance or in summoning the applicant-accused to face trial under aforesaid penal section. Keeping in view the over all facts, circumstances and the aforesaid case laws no case has made out for the quashing of the proceedings, charge sheet or the summoning order passed by the trial Court. 24. For the reasons given above, I do not find any substance in the application of the applicant and the same is therefore liable to be dismissed. The application filed by the applicant is, thus dismissed. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest without granting soft adjournments to the either party, in accordance with law. 25. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated. 26. A copy of this order be immediately sent to the trial Court. 27. It is clarified that observations of this court made herein before are only for the purpose of disposing this application and the same shall never be construed as the opinion of this Court on merits and the trial Court shall independently appreciate the evidence which would be produced by the parties and will come to its own conclusion without being guided by any observation made in this order. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 24.09.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J. Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 1144 of 2010 Ram Chandra Verma ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties 8 All. Dharmendra Nishad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 615 Counsel for the Applicant: Mukul Rakesh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., L.P. Shukla (Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.) 1. None is present for applicant when the case is taken up for hearing, however Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for State is present. 2. This case has been listed today for the reason that on perusal of judgment, after the same has been uploaded, it is noticed that in para-4 of page-1, one sentence has been crept which is not relevant for the disposal of dispute between the parties and the same appears to have crept up due to malfunctioning of the computer and thus is not having any bearing either on the facts or on the merits of the case and the same is required to be rectified. 3. Thus the phrase "Priti Saraf & Anr. Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No(s).296 of 2021 dated 10th March, 2021" appearing at page-1, para-4 of the judgment dated 09.08.2021, passed in Application U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1144 of 2010 is struck of and the above judgment dated 9.8.2021 is corrected to that extent. 4. This order shall remain part and parcel of the judgment dated 09.08.2021, passed in Application U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1144 of 2010 ---------- (2021)08ILR A615 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J. Application U/S 482. No. 5421 of 2021 Dharmendra Nishad ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Aqeel Ahmad, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. A. Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981Section 138-quashing of entire criminal proceeding-accused seeking quashing of entire proceeding on the sole ground that the complainant had not appeared before the court and had not given his evidence u/s 200202 Cr.P.C.-The magistrate was required to observe the provisions contained in sections 200-202 Cr.P.C. does not appear to have any substance especially when section 145(1) of N.I. Act contemplates taking of the complainant evidence on affidavit not only in the trial but also in any inquiry or other proceeding-Section 145 of the Act has excluded the provisions of Code of Criminal procedure with regard to the manner in which evidence of the complainant is to be taken- plea taken by the applicant, is not made out.(Para 1 to 8) The petition is dismissed. (E-5) List of Cases cited: 1. Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs Nimesh B. Thakore(2010) 3 SCC 83, 2. Sachin Agarwal Vs St. of U.P. (2011) 75 ACC 482 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal, J.)