# Ravi Shankar Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 933
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3712 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-shankar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47930
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323, 406, 420, 452, 467,
468, 471, 504 & 506 -The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Using statutory language does
not
necessarily
mean
deception
was
practiced - Any effort to settle civil
disputes and claims, which do not involve
any criminal offence, by applying pressure
though criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. (Para -9, 11)

Revisionist's application under Section 156(3) -
drafted not on basis of real facts but on basis of
legal advice - accused/opposite party closely
related to applicant/revisionist - forming a
business partnership - 'ikrarnama' supports their
partnership - applicant's application does not
suggest deception or false facts were used to
defraud him of money - no evidence of false
documents or fabricated tenders - dispute
arose during their business transactions -
application under Section 156(3) drafted to give
it a criminal color - statutory language used to
prove deception - fabricated stories to bring
matter within the jurisdiction of court. (Para -
10,11)

HELD:- Court finds no offense under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and that ingredients of
other sections have been deliberately inserted to
confound and to mislead the courts. Dispute is
likely civil, and the revisionist's attempt to
criminalize it. Such attempt must fail. No
illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the
impugned order. Revision liable to be dismissed.
(Para - 12)

Revision dismissed at admission stage. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

11 All. Ravi Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
933
to criminal trials based circumstantial
evidence only, the Supreme Court has, in
the cases noted below, laid down different
law on the point of motive and has clarified
that prosecution should prove motive as
well if it's case is based on circumstantial
evidence.

46. In view of Sampath Kumar Vs.
Inspector of Police Krishnagiri, AIR 2011
SC 1249, in this case the motive is neither
grave nor acceptable and it appears to be
unreasonable and insufficient to commit the
alleged crime. No independent witness has
been examined in support of the alleged
motive.

47. No F.S.L. Report in respect of
blood stained and plain soil has been
produced and it is not proved beyond
reasonable
doubt
that
deceased
was
actually killed on the alleged place of
occurrence.

48. Thus, from all the four corners
this Court is also of the opinion that the
learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the
accused persons. Hence, revision lacks
merit and is liable to be dismissed.

49. Accordingly, the revision is
dismissed. Lower Court's record be sent
back along with a copy of this judgment.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 933
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3712 of 2022

Ravi Shankar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Harish Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323, 406, 420, 452, 467,
468, 471, 504 & 506 -The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Using statutory language does
not
necessarily
mean
deception
was
practiced - Any effort to settle civil
disputes and claims, which do not involve
any criminal offence, by applying pressure
though criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. (Para -9, 11)

Revisionist's application under Section 156(3) -
drafted not on basis of real facts but on basis of
legal advice - accused/opposite party closely
related to applicant/revisionist - forming a
business partnership - 'ikrarnama' supports their
partnership - applicant's application does not
suggest deception or false facts were used to
defraud him of money - no evidence of false
documents or fabricated tenders - dispute
arose during their business transactions -
application under Section 156(3) drafted to give
it a criminal color - statutory language used to
prove deception - fabricated stories to bring
matter within the jurisdiction of court. (Para -
10,11)

HELD:- Court finds no offense under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and that ingredients of
other sections have been deliberately inserted to
confound and to mislead the courts. Dispute is
likely civil, and the revisionist's attempt to
criminalize it. Such attempt must fail. No
illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the
impugned order. Revision liable to be dismissed.
(Para - 12)

Revision dismissed at admission stage. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Randheer Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021

2. Paramjeet Batra Vs St. of Uttarakhand,
(2013) 11 SCC 673

3. Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs St. of Bihar & anr.,
(2005) 10 SCC 336

4. Robert John D'Souza & Ors . Vs Stephen V.
Gomes & anr., 2015 (9) SCC 96

5. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St. of Karn. & ors.,
Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2021

6. M/s I.O.C. Vs M/s. NEPC India Ltd & ors.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed against the order dated 16.08.2022
passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Jhansi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 334 of
2022 refusing to order registration of case
against
the
opposite
parties
on
an
application moved under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. by the applicant-Ravi Shankar.

3. This matter is being finally decided
without issuing notice to the respondent no.
2.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that
the applicant/present revisionist had moved
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
against
Ashish
Kushwaha
and
two
unknown persons with the allegations that
Ashish Kushwaha, married the applicant's
wife's sister and became his 'saadu bhai'
thus has been able to set up friendly
relations with him. He lured the revisionist
to enter into partnership with him. The
accused made him believe that he has been
making huge profits by getting tenders in
his favour worth Rs. 2,17,00,000/-. He
assured him to earn a good amount of
money if he participated in his business
venture; the applicant/revisionist could not
detect
his
dishonest
and
fraudulent
intention initially and therefore, he invested
a total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- on
different dates, however, later on, he came
to know that all the tenders and quotations
were false and fabricated; he asked the
applicant/revisionist to meet him at a hotel
in Jhansi in this connection; he also called
him at a place in Lucknow where he was
threatened with his life. On 01.02.2022,
Ashish Kushwaha came to his place in his
motor car, indulged in name calling and
forcibly made him sign some stamp papers
and also assaulted the applicant/revisionist.

5. The main contention of the
revisionist is that the learned court below
wrongly held that the place of occurrence
fell within District-Etawah and not within
District-Jhansi;
that
the
court
below
ignored
the
facts
mentioned
in
the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
showing that a big amount of money was
grabbed from the revisionist with a
dishonest intention; he was, on false
pretext,
cajoled
him
to
enter
into
partnership with the respondent no. 2 with
an eye on his money; the impugned order
has been passed on the basis of conjectures,
surmises and being arbitrary should be set
aside with the direction to lodge the FIR
against the respondent no. 2 under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 323, 504, 506, 406
IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act.

6. In nutshell, the allegations are that
the applicant/revisionist was lured to enter
into a business transaction with a dishonest
intention and that he has been defrauded of
11 All. Ravi Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
935
Rs. 15,00,000/- and was assaulted when the
applicant/revisionist protested against him.

7. The matter was heard and was
dismissed by an order dated 16.08.2022.
Against the order of dismissal, the
applicant/revisionist has come in revision
before this Court.

8. Before I proceed further, it shall be
useful to refer to some precedents with regard
to nature of dispute, as is before this Court. In
Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021 (Randheer
Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others) decided
on 02.09.2021, the case before the Supreme
Court was that one Arjun Dev and his wife
Bela Rani allegedly executed a registered
power of attorney of their bhumidhari plot in
favour of one Rajan Kumar, who, on the
basis of this power of attorney, executed sale
deeds in favour of the appellant and his
family members and their name was mutated
in the revenue records. However, during
mutation proceedings, one Ms. Beena
Shrivastava unsuccessfully filed an objection
before the Nayab Tehsildar. Thereafter, she
filed a suit for cancellation of power of
attorney but that was dismissed; the order of
dismissal was challenged in an appeal before
the High Court, which was partly allowed;
she went for further remedies by filing a
Special Leave Petition (Civil) but she
remained unsuccessful vide orders passed in
2016. The appellant filed civil suit against
Beena Shrivastava for injunction which was
granted in his favour. The unsuccessful party
brought some new persons in picture and a
FIR came to be lodged in September 2017,
which was challenged before the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad under Article 226,
and was disposed of by the High Court with
the direction that the petitioners shall not be
arrested till submission of Police report,
though, the investigation shall go on and shall
be brought into logical end.

In the above factual matrix of the
case, the Supreme Court relied on the
judgment in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of
Uttarakhand; (2013) 11 SCC 673. The
Apex Court referred to findings given in
Paramjeet Batra (supra) in Randheer
Singh (supra) as below:-

"Whether a complaint discloses a
criminal offence or not depends upon the
nature of facts alleged therein. Whether
essential ingredients of criminal offence are
present or not has to be judged by the High
Court.
A
complaint
disclosing
civil
transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a
civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted
as has happened in this case, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash the
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of the court."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
same case also referred to observation
made in Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State
of Bihar and Another; (2005) 10 SCC 336,
wherein it was observed that as no offence
under Sections 420 and 120 IPC was made
out and the dispute was of purely of civil
nature, hence, the remedy lay before the
civil court.

The Apex Court further referred
to observation made in Robert John
D'Souza & Ors . v. Stephen V. Gomes &
Anr.; 2015 (9) SCC 96 in Para 31 of
Randheer Singh (supra) as below:-

"12. As far as the offence of
cheating is concerned, the same is defined
in Section 415 IPC, for which the
punishment is provided under Section 420
IPC. Section 415 reads as under:

"415. Cheating.?Whoever, by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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'.

Explanation.?A
dishonest
concealment of facts is a deception within
the meaning of this section."

Illustrations

 ***

"From the above language of
the
section,
one
of
the
essential
ingredients for the offence of cheating is
deception, but in the present case, from
the contents of the complaint it nowhere
reflects that the complainant was deceived
or he or anyone else was induced to
deliver the property by deception. What
was done, was so reflected in the
resolutions, and sale deeds.

 ******

46. The court must ensure that
criminal prosecution is not used as an
instrument of harassment or for seeking
private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to
pressurise the accused. On analysis of the
aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion
that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay
down an inflexible rule that would govern
the
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction.
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts
under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to
be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution and only when it is justified by the
tests specifically laid down in the statute
itself and in the aforementioned cases. In
view of the settled legal position, the
impugned judgment cannot be sustained."

16. In view of the above
discussion
and
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that none of the offences for which
the appellants are summoned, is made out
from the complaint and material on
record. We further find that it is nothing
but abuse of process of law on the part of
the
complainant
to
implicate
the
appellants in a criminal case after a
period of twelve years of execution of
registered sale deeds in question, who is
neither party to the sale deeds nor a
member of the Society. Therefore, we
allow the appeal and set aside the orders
passed by the High Court and that of the
courts below. Accordingly, the order
passed by the Magistrate summoning the
appellants in the criminal complaint filed
by Respondent 1, in respect of the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 409 and
420 IPC, also stands quashed."

Eventually,
the
Apex
Court
observed that the criminal proceedings
were being taken recourse as a weapon of
harassment against the purchasers and that
the FIR read with chargesheet did not
disclose any offence and allowed the appeal
and quashed the proceedings against the
appellant.

9. The Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 1285 of 2021 (Mitesh Kumar
J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka and Others)
referred to the judgment of itself rendered
in M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s.
NEPC India Ltd & Ors. in Para 41 and 42
as below:

"41. "..........."14. While no one
with a legitimate cause or grievance
should
be
prevented
from
seeking
remedies available in criminal law, a
complainant who initiates or persists with
a prosecution, being fully aware that the
criminal proceedings are unwarranted
and his remedy lies only in civil law,
11 All. Ravi Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
937
should himself be made accountable, at
the end of such misconceived criminal
proceedings, in accordance with law."

42. It was also observed:-

"13. While on this issue, it is
necessary to take notice of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
This is obviously on account of a
prevalent
impression
that
civil
law
remedies are time consuming and do not
adequately
protect
the
interests
of
lenders/creditors?.There
is
also
an
impression
that
if
a
person
could
somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of
imminent settlement. Any effort to settle
civil disputes and claims, which do not
involve any criminal offence, by applying
pressure though criminal prosecution
should be deprecated and discouraged."

10. Now I come back to the facts of
this case. From perusal of the application
moved under Section 156(3) by the
revisionist, it becomes more than obvious
that it has been drafted not on the basis of
real facts but on the basis of legal advice.
This
is
not
disputed
that
the
accused/opposite party Ashish is closely
related to the applicant/revisionist and that
they entered into business partnership. The
'ikrarnama'/deed
of
agreement
dated
08.10.2021 referred to in the application
under Section 156(3), a copy whereof is on
record, shows that they have been partners
for carrying on business of their firm. It
will be useful to reproduce the words in the
'ikrarnama' paper no. 19A available on
record, which is as below:-

1- यह डक उभय पक्ष एक दूसरे को सगे साढू
होने के कारण सगे ररस्तेदार है एविं घडनष्ट पररडचत है व दोनो
पक्ष ििट डनिटला बायो िूलेक्स डिस० शीट एण्ड िूट िाडिटक
ििट िें साझेदार/ पाटटनर आधे आधे लाभ हाडन के है। उक्त
ििट इटावा उ०प्र० िें है।

2- यह डक प्रथि पक्ष डदनािंक 07/10/2021 को इटावा को
झ सी आये और पूवट िें ही तय डितीय पक्ष से० 4,00,000/- (चार
लाख रुपया) नगद प्राप्त करने के डलये तय डतडथ पर झ सी
आये और नगद रुपया 4,00,000/- रू० अपनी गाड़ी के अन्दर
गाड़ी सिं० यू०पी० 60 एििी 8457 िारूडत बलेजर के अन्दर
दोपहर के सिय डितीय पक्ष से प्राप्त डकये। उक्त रुपया प्रथि
पक्ष ने डितीय पक्ष से डदनािंक 08/10/2021 को नगद प्राप्त
डकये। यह तहरीर आज डदनािंक 08/10/2021 को जजी झ सी िें
स्वेच्छा से की गयी वक्त पर काि आवे।"

11. There is nothing to suggest that
deception was ever practiced on the
applicant for execution of this 'ikrarnama'
or that any false facts were introduced in
that paper to defraud the applicant of his
money. There is no material to even faintly
suggest that any false document was ever
executed or that tenders were false and
fabricated. It is not made clear in what
manner the papers were false or fabricated.
From the application, prima facie, it
appears that some dispute arose in course
of their business or financial or monetary
transactions. There are sufficient indicators
to show that dispute, if any, between the
two sides is essentially of a civil nature.
The application under Section 156(3) has
been drafted to give it a criminal colour by
using
such
words
as
'छि,
कपट,
बिनीयती'. Using statutory language is not
sufficient to draw the conclusion that there
has actually been a deception practiced
upon him for siphoning of money from the
revisionist with malafide and dishonest
intention. It also appears that the stories
have been cooked up to bring the matter
within the jurisdiction of court's at Jhansi.

12. In my view, prima facie, no
offence much less under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468, 471, are made out and that
ingredients of rest of the Sections 452, 323,
504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the
SC/ST Act have been inserted deliberately
to confound and to mislead the courts. At
the most probably the dispute, if any,
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between them is of civil nature and the
revisionist has unsuccessfully tried to give
it a cloak of criminality. Such an attempt
must fail. I do not find any illegality,
impropriety or irregularity in the impugned
order and thus revision is liable to be
dismissed.

13. The revision is, accordingly,
dismissed at the stage of admission.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 938
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2022

Minor 'X'. ...Revisionist (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Abhishek Kumar, Sri Anjani Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Ms. Aaarti Agrawal, Sri Vinay Kumar
Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015 - Section 102 - Revision ,
Section 15 - Preliminary assessment into
heinous offences by Board , Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 342, 452, 354,
326k, 326kh, 302, 376 & 511 - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7/8 , The
Schedule Castes And The Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities ) Act , 1989 -
Section 3(2)5
-
Opinion of
a
child
psychologist or other professional dealing
in child psychology or child psychiatry is
mandatorily to be taken unless the Board
comprises any such member.(Para -12)
(B) The Juvenile Justice Rules Model
Rules, 2016 - Rule 10A - Board is
empowered to take the assistance of
psychologist/psychiatrist
and
other
experts who had experience of working
with
the
children
under
difficult
circumstances - "the ability to understand
the
consequences
of the offence"
-
consequences of the offence could be
numerous and manifold which cannot be
just linked to a framework - for this
purpose, the overall picture as also future
consequences with reference to the facts
of the case are required to be constantly
analysed by the Board. (Para - 9)

FIR against revisionist-accused person -
harassed a 16-year-old girl - matter before
Juvenile Justice Board - age determination
inquiry - declared a juvenile - appealed -
order was affirmed - hence revision - Juvenile
submitted an application to Board - for
psychologist/psychiatrist
examination
-
request rejected - questions - assess
individual's
mental
capacity
and
understanding of act's consequences - unclear
if any board members are professionals in
child psychology - appellate court concurred
with Juvenile Justice Board's assessment -
stating court did not independently evaluate
facts. (Para - 4,11,12)

HELD:-Record does not indicate that opinion
of professional experts on two counts i.e., the
mental capacity to commit the crime and
ability to understand the consequences of the
act have been elicited at any stage. Impugned
orders set aside. Matter of preliminary
assessment remanded to the Juvenile Justice
Board for expeditious proceedings. (Para -
12,13)

Revision disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Barun Chandra Thakur Vs Master Bholu & anr. ,
Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)