# Sanjeev Chaddha v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 409
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-09
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1488 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjeev-chaddha-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52352
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - The Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Section - 406 - Application u/s
482 - for quashing of impugned Charge-sheet as
well as summoning order - FIR - complainant
alleged that his elder brother has committed
criminal breach of trust that he has not returned
Rs. 2.20 Lakh given him on different dates -
court
finds
that,
neither
there
was
an
'entrustment' nor any proof of 'dishonestly
misappropriated' nor there was any evidence
regarding violation of any legal contract and
none of ingredient of offence of criminal breach
of trust is made out - therefore, the impugned
criminal proceeding appears to be initiated by
the complainant only to put pressure on his
elder bother to negotiate since there is a Will
wherein the complainant is not a beneficiary -
held, it is a fit case to invoke inherent
jurisdiction where criminal proceedings was
initiated only for purpose of wrecking vengeance
- hence - entire proceedings arising out of
charge-sheet, as well as impugned summoning
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order are quashed - complainant is directed to
pay Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation - directions
issued, accordingly - application is allowed -
with a remark that we always cherish sacrifice
of the 'Bharat', younger brother of the Bhagwan
Shri Ram but the complainant for his conduct
towards his elder brother could be termed as a
'Kalyugi Bharat'with a remark -(Para - 16, 17,
18, 19, 20)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Sanjeev Chaddha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
409
is concerned, it would be relevant to take
note of the provisions of section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act which reads as
follows:-

"2. Definition of "dowry".- In
this Act, "dowry" means any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be
given either directly or indirectly-

(a)by one party to a marriage to
the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party
to a marriage or by any other person, to
either party to the marriage or to any other
person, at or before [or any time after the
marriage][in connection with the marriage
of the said parties, but does not include]
dower or mahr in the case of persons to
whom the Muslim Personal Law (shariat)
applies."

10. From the plain reading of the
aforesaid provision the dowry means any
property or valuable security given or
"agreed to be given" in connection with
the marriage of the parties.

11. However, in the entire complaint
the allegations of demand of dowry which
have been made that has neither given nor
agreed to have been given, therefore, the
considered opinion of this Court the
provision of section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act would also not attract in the instant
case. So far
as
the allegations of
harassment and torture are there with
regard to the same it would be relevant that
there is no specific allegation, and only
general and vague allegations have been
made by opposite party no. 2 without there
being any specific issue, who actually and
when had assaulted the opposite party no.
2, therefore, in the considered opinion of
the Court offence u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC are
also not attracted in the instant case.

12. In view thereof the instant
application is allowed and the entire
proceeding of the instant case are hereby
quashed.
---------
(2024) 9 ILRA 409
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1488 of 2020

Sanjeev Chaddha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Avanish Kumar Shukla, Mithilesh Kumar
Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Dinesh Kumar Singh, G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - The Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Section - 406 - Application u/s
482 - for quashing of impugned Charge-sheet as
well as summoning order - FIR - complainant
alleged that his elder brother has committed
criminal breach of trust that he has not returned
Rs. 2.20 Lakh given him on different dates -
court
finds
that,
neither
there
was
an
'entrustment' nor any proof of 'dishonestly
misappropriated' nor there was any evidence
regarding violation of any legal contract and
none of ingredient of offence of criminal breach
of trust is made out - therefore, the impugned
criminal proceeding appears to be initiated by
the complainant only to put pressure on his
elder bother to negotiate since there is a Will
wherein the complainant is not a beneficiary -
held, it is a fit case to invoke inherent
jurisdiction where criminal proceedings was
initiated only for purpose of wrecking vengeance
- hence - entire proceedings arising out of
charge-sheet, as well as impugned summoning
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order are quashed - complainant is directed to
pay Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation - directions
issued, accordingly - application is allowed -
with a remark that we always cherish sacrifice
of the 'Bharat', younger brother of the Bhagwan
Shri Ram but the complainant for his conduct
towards his elder brother could be termed as a
'Kalyugi Bharat'with a remark -(Para - 16, 17,
18, 19, 20)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Har.Vs Bhajan Lal (1992 SU.P.p (1) SCC
335,

2. Deepak Gaba & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(2023
vol. 3 SCC 423),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for applicant and Sri Rajiv
Chaddha (complainant in person) and Sri
Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for
State.

2. Applicant has approached this
Court to quash a charge-sheet dated
28.01.2019 under Section 406 I.P.C, Police
Station- Kidwai Nagar, District- Kanpur
Nagar (arising out of Case Crime No.344
of 2017), cognizance as well as summoning
order dated 08.02.2019 passed in Criminal
Case No. 2330 of 2019, pending before the
Court of A.C.M.M, Court No.-7, Kanpur
Nagar.

3. Facts of present case are
unfortunate, that two real brothers are at
loggerheads and their relation became so
inimical that after death of their father, they
are now entangled in present criminal
proceeding. The complainant, an Advocate,
has alleged that applicant, his elder brother,
has committed offence of criminal breach
of trust that he has not returned Rs. 2.20
lakh given to him on different dates for his
business, but despite earlier repeated
assurance of returning it, he after death of
their father, refused to return it.

4. The complainant has also alleged
that on basis of an alleged Will, applicant
has not only opened a joint account with
his father but after his death, he withdrew
money without his consent. An FIR was
lodged by the complainant against his elder
brother i.e. applicant for above referred
offence on 12.11.2017, wherein after
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on
28.01.2019, for an offence under Section
406 I.P.C., only for allegation that
applicant has not returned Rs.2.20 lakh.
The other allegations were not found to be
true. In this regard, 'brief facts of case' as
mentioned in charge-sheet at its serial No.
16,
being
relevant
are
reproduced
hereinafter :-

" महोदय भनवेदन है भक मुकदमा उपिोक्त वादी श्री
िार्ीव चढ्ढा की तहिीि के आधाि पि पंर्ीकृत होकि भववेचना
उ०भन० श्री प्रदीप कुमाि मौयाट को सुपुदट हुई उनके माघ मेला ड्युर्ी
चले र्ाने के उपिान्त भववेचना उ०भन० श्री भवशेष कुमाि को सुपुदट
हुई उनका स्र्थानान्तिण हो र्ाने के बाद यह भववेचना मुझ उ०भन०
को प्राप्त हुई अब तक की तमामी भववेचना बयान वादी, बयानात
गवाहान, भनिीक्षण घर्नास्र्थल आभद में अभियुक्त संर्ीव चढ्ढा पुत्र
स्व० वीिेन्र नािायन चढ्ढा भन० १९८ एन ब्लाक भकदवई नगि
कानपुि नगि द्वािा अपने िाई वादी मुकदमा श्री िार्ीव चढ्ढा से दो
लाख बीस हर्ाि रुपया कािोबाि के भसलभसले में भलया र्था औि यह
कहा र्था शीघ्र ही वापस कि देंगे लेभकन अभियुक्त द्वािा अमानत में
खयानत किके बडे िाई का रूपया हडप भलया है भर्सका यह कायट
धािा ४०६ िादभव की हद को पहुंचता है। अभियुक्त संर्ीव चढ्ढा
उपिोक्त का चालान र्रिये आिोप पत्र सं०19/2019 भदनांक
28.01.2019 को माननीय न्यायालय भकया र्ा िहा है अतः
महोदय से अनुिोध है भक सबूत तलब कि दभडडत किने भक कृपा
किें।" (Emphasis Supplied)

5. On above referred charge-sheet,
cognizance of offence was taken and a case
9 All. Sanjeev Chaddha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
411
was registered on 08.02.2019. On same
day, summons were issued to present
applicant. The order dated 08.02.2019 is
reproduced hereinafter :-

"08-02-2019- आर् र्थाना भकदवई नगि से
मु० अ० सं० 344/2017 में आिोप पत्र मय केस डायिी के
प्रस्तुत।

एफ० आई० आि० केस डायिी आिोप पत्र का
अवलोकन भकया। अभियुकत संर्ीव चढ््‌ढा के भवरूद्ध धािा 406
आई० पी० सी० का केस बनना पाया र्ाना है। संज्ञान लेने हेतु
आधाि पयाटप्त है। संज्ञान भलया र्ाना है। मुकदमा दर्ट िभर्स्र्ि हो।
भववेचक द्वािा अभियुक्त को न्यायालय में उपभस्र्थत हेतु नोभर्स
तामीला किाया गया है। अभियुक्त र्रिये बी० डब्लू० भदनांक- 0503-2019 को तलब हो।"
(Emphasis Supplied)

6. The applicant has challenged the
above referred charge-sheet, cognizance as
well as summoning order in present
application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
which is pending for last four years. During
proceedings of present case, at a later stage,
since both parties, being real brothers, have
shown readiness to negotiate following
order dated 21.02.2024 was passed :-

"Heard Sri Mithlesh Kumar
Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Rajiv Chadda, opposite party no.2, in
person, who is an Advocate of this Court
and Sri Vijay Kumar assisted by Sri Ajay
Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

This matter was fixed for hearing
in chamber today.

Applicant and opposite party no.2
are real brothers and they are present in
Court today. On the request of both the
parties, matter was heard today.

Some dispute with regard to the
Will executed by their father arose between
them. In the negotiation held between the
parties through learned counsel for the
parties assisted by learned AGA, they
arrived at an amicable settlement of the
dispute to be reduced in writing and to be
filed before this Court by 02.04.2024. It is
also agreed upon between the parties that
the applicant shall also consult his sister
Mrs. Priti Kapoor, who is presently
residing in Agra. The applicant and
opposite party no.2 shall extend their No
Objection Certificates in continuation to
the arrangement of the house situated at
Preetam Nagar, Prayagraj as well as
Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, so that
names of the applicant and opposite party
no.2 may be mutated in the records of the
respective Municipal Corporations.

 So far as the payment of amount
as mentioned in the Will executed by the
father of the parties is concerned, as per
negotiation, the settled amount is Rs.4.95
lakhs for which a provision is made in
paragraph 5 of the Will dated 26.5.2016 by
Late V.N. Chadda, former ADJ plus
Rs.5.00 lakhs, as settlement amount, total
of which comes to Rs.9.95 lakhs. The
parties have agreed that Rs.2.20 lakhs has
to be deducted from the total amount,
which is already accepted by opposite
party no.2. Now, opposite party no.2 is
entitled for Rs.7.75 lakhs out of which,
Rs.4.95 lakhs is lying in the Bank which, he
would receive after completing necessary
formalities with the Bank. Rest amount of
Rs.2.80 lakhs shall be paid by the applicant
through a Demand Draft before this Court
within 30 days from today through his
counsel, Sri M K Shukla.

So far as transaction of shares, a
SBBL gun and a Rifle of the father of the
applicant and opposite party no.2 is
concerned, that will be settled between
them to which, opposite party no.2 is
entitled to receive. The applicant and the
sister of the parties shall also give NOCs to
opposite party no.2 to get his name entered
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
according to the provisions of the Arms
Act.

A
Wagon-R
Car,
bearing
Registration No.UP 78 CK 8403, shall
stand
transferred
according
to
the
arrangement made in the Will and opposite
party no.2 shall provide NOC in favour of
the applicant.

Put up this case on 02.04.2024 at
3:30 pm in Chamber.

Interim order, if any, is extended
till the next date of listing.

In view of the aforesaid proposed
agreement, sister of the applicant and
opposite party no.2, Mrs Priti Kapoor, may
make herself present before this Court on
the next date, if so desired.

However, it is made clear that the
terms and conditions mentioned above, are
drawn on the basis of the negotiations
made in the presence of the applicant and
opposite party no.2 as well as their
respective counsels. Therefore, in case of
any failure for agreement upon the
aforesaid conditions, no right of any party
shall be prejudiced."

7. Thereafter, parties were granted
time to finalise negotiation and, therefore,
present matter was adjourned on various
dates
i.e.
04.07.2024,
02.04.2024,
09.04.2024, 09.05.2024, 22.05.2024 and
lastly on 20.08.2024, however, when
parties have not able to reach to any mutual
agreement, the Court decided to hear it
finally. During final hearing also, the Court
tried to mediate, however, unfortunately,
adamant approach of parties, particularly of
the complainant, no final agreement could
arrive and matter was heard finally.

8. Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for applicant has submitted
that charge-sheet was filed only for offence
under Section 406 I.P.C. on an allegation
that complainant has paid Rs.2.20 lakh on
different dates to applicant i.e. his elder
brother for business purpose, however,
despite assurance same was not returned.
All other allegations about withdrawing
money from a joint account by the
applicant by way of cheating and of a
forged Will were found false.

9. Learned counsel also submitted that
during
negotiations,
the
applicant
has
returned the said amount (Rs.2.20 lakh) to the
complainant, which has not been seriously
disputed by the complainant appearing in
person. Learned counsel by referring the
contents of Section 406 I.P.C. submitted that
there was no entrustment, rather if allegations
are considered to be true, it would be a
commercial dispute, i.e. a civil dispute. The
complainant has pointed it with colours of
criminality.

10. The complainant has not stated
during investigation that money was given as
an entrustment. There was no written
agreement between parties. Learned counsel
also submitted that summoning order as
referred has not assigned any reasons that
there are sufficient grounds to proceed.

11. The above submissions are opposed
by Sri Rajiv Chaddha, the complainant
appearing in person. He submitted that
applicant has committed cheating also. The
alleged Will is a document of fraud, however,
failed to convince the Court on basis of above
referred brief facts of charge-sheet as well as
evidence collected during investigation. The
only allegation which was found sufficient to
file charge-sheet was that amount of Rs.2.20
lakh was not returned to complainant.

12. The allegation of cheating was not
even found sufficient to file charge-sheet.
The complainant has also not filed any civil
9 All. Sanjeev Chaddha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
413
litigation to challenge the Will. The
argument of unfair investigation could not
be taken in present application and for that
there may be an alternative remedy.

13. In order to appreciate the rival
submission, I have also carefully perused
the case diary, provided by the complainant
that
applicant
has
provided
relevant
documents such as copy of the Will and
details of opening of joint account. The
Investigating Officer has also considered
the report submitted by concerned Bank
that it was a joint account duly signed by
applicant and his father and operation of
account was 'either of survival', therefore,
there is no error committed during
investigation for non-filing the chargesheet for offence of cheating.

14. Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra,
learned A.G.A. for State has supported the
charge-sheet but has not denied the
ingredients of Section 406 I.P.C., in given
facts may not be made out.

15. In aforesaid circumstances, the
Court proceeds to consider whether on
basis of material available, offence of
criminal breach of trust would be made out
or not. In this regard, following paragraphs
of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of
U.P. and another (2023) 3 SCC 423,
being relevant are reproduced hereinafter :-

"15. For Section 405IPC to be
attracted, the following have to be
established:

(a) the accused was entrusted
with property, or entrusted with dominion
over property;

(b) 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

(c)
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
which the person has made, touching the
discharge of such trust.

16. Thus, criminal breach of trust
would, inter alia, mean using or disposing
of the property by a person who is
entrusted with or otherwise has dominion.
Such an act must not only be done
dishonestly, but also in violation of any
direction of law or any contract express or
implied relating to carrying out the trust.
[Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8
SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 646].

17. However, in the instant case,
materials on record fail to satisfy the
ingredients
of
Section
405IPC.
The
complaint does not directly refer to the
ingredients of Section 405IPC and does not
state how and in what manner, on facts, the
requirements are satisfied. Pre-summoning
evidence is also lacking and suffers on this
account. On these aspects, the summoning
order is equally quiet, albeit, it states that
"a forged demand of Rs 6,37,252.16p had
been raised by JIPL, which demand is not
due in terms of statements by Shubhankar
P. Tomar and Sakshi Tilak Chand". A mere
wrong demand or claim would not meet the
conditions specified by Section 405IPC in
the absence of evidence to establish
entrustment, dishonest misappropriation,
conversion, use or disposal, which action
should be in violation of any direction of
law, or legal contract touching the
discharge
of
trust.
Hence,
even
if
Respondent 2 complainant is of the opinion
that the monetary demand or claim is
incorrect and not payable, given the failure
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to prove the requirements of Section
405IPC, an offence under the same section
is not constituted. In the absence of factual
allegations which satisfy the ingredients of
the offence under Section 405IPC, a mere
dispute on monetary demand of Rs
6,37,252.16p, does not attract criminal
prosecution under Section 406IPC.

16. As referred above, for purpose of
Section 406 Cr.P.C., the requirement for
commission of an offence of criminal
breach of trust is that there must be
entrustment with property, which was
dishonestly misappropriate or converted to
his own use and it must be in violation of
any direction of law or any legal contract
express or implied, however, in present
case, neither there was an 'entrustment' in
such sense nor there was any proof that it
was 'dishonestly misappropriate' nor there
was any evidence that such act was in
violation of any legal contract express or
implied, therefore, on basis of material,
none of ingredient of offence of criminal
breach of trust is made out.

17. The Court at this stage, also takes
note that alleged amount has already been
returned
during
pendency
of
this
application, when parties were trying to
negotiate. The proceedings appears to be
initiated by the complainant only to put
pressure on his elder brother to negotiate
since there is a Will wherein the
complainant is not a beneficiary.

18. The said Will has been alleged to be
a creature of fraud but no civil proceeding has
been still initiated by complainant. The facts
of present case are not only squarely covered
by facts as well as on law as observed in
Deepak Gaba (supra) but it is a fit case to
invoke inherent jurisdiction in terms of
paragraph 102(7) of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 426 that present criminal
proceedings was initiated by the complainant
only for purpose of wrecking vengeance. For
reference para 102(7) of Bhajan Lal (supra) is
reproduced hereinafter:

"(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where
the
proceeding
is
maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

19. In the aforesaid circumstances, not
only the ingredients of Section 406 I.P.C. are
not made out but proceedings are also
creature of malafides and were initiated only
to harass the applicant by giving cloak of a
criminal case to a dispute which was
essentially of a civil nature, therefore, entire
proceedings arising out of charge-sheet dated
28.01.2019 under Section 406 I.P.C., Police
Station- Kidwai Nagar, District- Kanpur
Nagar (arising out of Case Crime No. 344 of
2017) as well as cognizance and summoning
order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Court
of A.C.M.M., Court No.-7, Kanpur Nagar are
hereby quashed and the complainant is
directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as a cost of
litigation to the applicant within four weeks
and a proof of it be placed on record of this
case.

20. The Court deems fit to conclude
this judgment with a parting remark that we
always cherish sacrifice of the Bharat (भरत),
younger brother of the Bhagwan Shri Ram
but the complainant for his conduct
towards his elder brother could be termed
as a 'Kalyugi Bharat (कलयुगी भरत)'.

21. Accordingly, Application is
allowed.
9 All. Piyush Singh @ Bobby Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
415
---------
(2024) 9 ILRA 415
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7720 of 2024

Piyush Singh @ Bobby Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Shailendra Singh, Ankit Tiwari, Neelam
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - The Indian Evidence Act -
Section103-
Plea
of
Alibi
-Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 -
Criminal Proceedings -- Quashing of Proceedings
-plea of alibi is a question of fact- which must be
proved during trial with clear and cogent
evidence-the plea of alibi, if raised, should be
considered only after the prosecution has
successfully proven its case-the burden of proof
rests on the accused to establish an alibi with
certainty- this court in exercise of its jurisdiction
should not meticulously examine the evidence
filed along with charge-sheet by the Investigating
Officer- same is an issue relating to appreciation
of evidence- the power exercised by this Court is
discretionary in nature.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Binay Kumar Singh Vs St. of Bihar [(1997) 1
SCC 283]
2. Rajendra Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2007) 7 SCC 378

3. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs St. of U.P. [(1981) 2
SCC 166 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 379]
4. St. of Mah. Vs Narsingrao Gangaram PiM.P.le
[(1984) 1 SCC 446 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 109 : AIR
1984 SC 63]

5. Gurcharan Singh Vs St. of Pun. [AIR 1956 SC
460 : 1956 Cri LJ 827]

6. Chandrika Prasad Singh Vs St. of Bihar
[(1972) 4 SCC 140 : AIR 1972 SC 109]

7. St. of Har. Vs Sher Singh [(1981) 2 SCC 300 :
1981 SCC (Cri) 421 : AIR 1981 SC 1021]

8. Shaikh Sattar Vs St. of Mah. [(2010) 8 SCC
430]

9. Gurpreet Singh Vs St. of Har. [(2002) 8 SCC
18 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 186]

10. Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs The St. of Bihar &
ors.(2019) 6 SCC 107)

11. R. P. Kapur Vs St. of Pun. AIR 1960 SC 866

12. St. of Har. & ors.Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal &
ors.1992 Supp. (1) SCC 355

13. St. of Bihar & anr. Vs P. P. Sharma & anr.;
1992 Supp (1) SCC 222

14. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs
Mohammad Shariful Haque & anr.; 2005 (1)
SCC 122

15. M. N. Ojha Vs Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009
(9) SCC 682

16. Rajeev Kourav Vs Baisahab & ors.(2020) 3
SCC 317

17. St. of U.P. Vs Akhil Sharda & ors.2022 SCC
OnLine SC

18. Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs St. of U.P. & ors.]

19. Harshendra Kumar D. Vs Rebatilata Koley &
ors., (2011) 3 SCC 351

20. G. N. Mishra & anr.Vs Smt. Divya Awasthi &
anr., MANU/UP/1879/2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)