# Sushil Kumar Verma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 606
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-11
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 12106 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sushil-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-49488
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Sections 138 & 142 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - The applicant,
Sushil Kumar Verma, an Assistant Engineer in the
U.P. St. Construction Cooperative Union, sought bail
in Case Crime No. 52/2022 under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, registered at P.S.
Indiranagar, Lucknow (Commissionerate Lucknow) -
The FIR, lodged on 15.02.2022 by the complainant
(owner of Lucknow Construction), alleged that the
applicant borrowed Rs.34,40,000 for personal use
and issued four cheques, which were dishonored by
the bank. Additionally, the applicant allegedly
assigned departmental work worth Rs.19,00,000 to
the complainant without a work order, and no
payment was made. The applicant promised
repayment within two weeks at the police station
but failed to comply (Paras 3-5) - The applicant
claimed innocence, no criminal history, and filed an
affidavit stating the allegations were false. He
disclosed involvement in six cases, five under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
one under Sections 406, 420 IPC (Case Crime No.
130/2023, P.S. Aliganj, Lucknow), registered after
the present case (Para 8) - The St. opposed bail,
citing the applicant's criminal history and an
additional case under Section 138 NI Act (Case No.
61650/2021). The complainant's counsel argued
that the applicant defrauded Rs.34,40,000 and
Rs.19,00,000 and suggested referring the matter to
mediation for recovery (Paras 7, 9-10) - The
applicant's counsel contended that the dispute was
civil in nature, misused as a criminal case to
pressure settlement, and no criminal offence was
made out beyond Section 138 NI Act.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is of very serious nature, hence the
anticipatory bail application submitted by the
accused deserves to be cancelled.

14. In this case, a heinous crime has been
committed with a minor retarded girl aged
about 14 years and eight months, by the
applicant, who is said to be a Teacher. In our
society, "A Teacher plays a very important role
in shaping the future of their students" and
such conduct of the teacher would certainly
create an atmosphere of fear in the minds of
people of society and such perpetrator should
not go unpunished and should get just
punishment from the Courts of law to curb
such incidents in future.

15. In the light of above, looking to the
facts and circumstances of this case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties
as mentioned above, taking into consideration
the role assigned to the applicant as per
prosecution case, gravity and nature of
accusation, medical report and the statement
under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., this Court
is of the view that no case for exercising its
discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
is made out in favour of applicant.

16. Accordingly, this application under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 606
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 12106 of 2023

Sushil Kumar Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Desh Deepak Singh, Avinash Singh Vishen, Pradeep
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Girdhari Lal Yadav

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Sections 138 & 142 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - The applicant,
Sushil Kumar Verma, an Assistant Engineer in the
U.P. St. Construction Cooperative Union, sought bail
in Case Crime No. 52/2022 under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, registered at P.S.
Indiranagar, Lucknow (Commissionerate Lucknow) -
The FIR, lodged on 15.02.2022 by the complainant
(owner of Lucknow Construction), alleged that the
applicant borrowed Rs.34,40,000 for personal use
and issued four cheques, which were dishonored by
the bank. Additionally, the applicant allegedly
assigned departmental work worth Rs.19,00,000 to
the complainant without a work order, and no
payment was made. The applicant promised
repayment within two weeks at the police station
but failed to comply (Paras 3-5) - The applicant
claimed innocence, no criminal history, and filed an
affidavit stating the allegations were false. He
disclosed involvement in six cases, five under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
one under Sections 406, 420 IPC (Case Crime No.
130/2023, P.S. Aliganj, Lucknow), registered after
the present case (Para 8) - The St. opposed bail,
citing the applicant's criminal history and an
additional case under Section 138 NI Act (Case No.
61650/2021). The complainant's counsel argued
that the applicant defrauded Rs.34,40,000 and
Rs.19,00,000 and suggested referring the matter to
mediation for recovery (Paras 7, 9-10) - The
applicant's counsel contended that the dispute was
civil in nature, misused as a criminal case to
pressure settlement, and no criminal offence was
made out beyond Section 138 NI Act.

Case Law Cited:

1. Indian Oil Corporation Vs NEPC India Ltd.,
(2006) 6 SCC 736 (Para 11).

2. G. Sagar Suri Vs St. of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636
(Para 11).
10 All. Sushil Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
607
3. Anil Kumar Tulsiyani Vs St. of U.P., 2023 SCC
OnLine All 733 (Para 12).

4. Dilip Singh Vs St. of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 779 (Para
13).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J)

1. प्रार्थी के मवद्वान अमिवक्ता श्री िेश िीपक मसिंह, मवद्वान
अमतररक्त शासकीय अमिवक्ता श्री राकेश कुिार मसिंह तर्था मशकायतकताा
के मवद्वान अमिवक्ता श्री मगरिारी लाल यािव को सुना तर्था पत्रावली का
पररशीलन मकया।

2. प्रस्तुत प्रार्थाना-पत्र प्रार्थी ने िुकििा अपराि सिंख्या 52 सन्
2022 अन्द्तगात िारा 406,420,467,468,471,504,506
भा०ि०मव० र्थाना इमन्द्िरानगर, मजला लखनऊ उत्तरी (कमिश्नरेर्
लखनऊ) िें जिानत की प्रार्थाना की है।

3. मिनािंक 15-02-2022 िें मलखाई गई प्रर्थि सूचना
ररपोर्ा िें मशकायतकताा ने बताया मक वह लखनऊ कन्द्स्रकशन का
िामलक है। प्रार्थी उत्तर प्रिेश रायय मनिााण सहकारी सिंघ िें अवर
अमभयिंता है। प्रार्थी ने अपने मनजी कािों के मलए मशकायतकताा से
34,40,000/-रु० मलए र्थे। तत्पश्चात प्रार्थी ने मशकायतकताा को कुछ
मवभागीय कायों का एस्र्ीिेर् मिया तर्था मबना मकसी वडा आडार के
लगभग 19,00,000/- रु० का काया करा मलया, मजस मवषय िें
उसको एक रुपये का भी भुगतान
 नहीं कराया।

4. प्रार्थी ने 34,40,000/- रु० के बिले चार चेक मिये, जो
बैंक द्वारा अनािररत कर मिये गए।

5. प्रर्थि सूचना ररपोर्ा िें यह भी कहा है मक र्थाना अध्यक्ष
द्वारा प्रार्थी को र्थाने पर बुलाया गया और प्रार्थी ने मशकायत कताा के सारे
भुगतान को िेने के मलए िो सप्ताह का सिय िािंगा तर्था इस आशय की
मलमखत घोषणा भी की, परन्द्तु उसने मशकायतकताा का रुपया वापस नही
मकया।

6. प्रार्थाना पत्र के सार्थ प्रस्तुत शपर्थ पत्र िें कहा गया है मक
प्रार्थी मनिोष है तर्था उसका कोई अपरामिक इमतहास नहीं है।

7. मवद्वान अमतररक्त शासकीय अमिवक्ता ने प्रार्थाना पत्र का
मवरोि मकया तर्था यह कहा मक प्रार्थी का आपरामिक इमतहास है तर्था
वह जिानत पाने का अमिकारी नही है।

8. छः िािलों िें प्रार्थी की सिंमलप्ता प्रार्थाना पत्र के सार्थ प्रस्तुत
शपर्थ पत्र की िारा 46 िें िशााई गई है, मजनिें से 5 िािले िारा 138
मलखत परक्राम्य अमिमनयि से सिंबिंमित है तर्था एक प्रर्थि सूचना ररपोर्ा
सिंख्या 130/2023 अन्द्तगात िारा 406,420 ििं०प्र०सिं० र्थाना
अलीगिंज, लखनऊ िें है जो मक प्रस्तुत िािले के बाि मलखाई गई है।

9. मवद्वान अमतररक्त शासकीय अमिवक्ता का कर्थन है मक प्रार्थी
एक अन्द्य िािले-61650/2021 िारा 138 एन.आई एक्र् िें भी
आरोमपत है। प्रार्थी के मवद्वान अमिवक्ता का कर्थन है मक प्रार्थी को उक्त
मशकायत की सूचना प्राप्त नहीं हुई है।

10. मशकायत कताा के मवद्वान अमिवक्ता ने प्रार्थाना पत्र का
घोर मवरोि मकया तर्था उन्द्होंने यह कहा मक प्रार्थी ने िोखे से मशकायत
कताा के 34,40,000/- रु० हड़प मलए है तर्था 19,00,000/- रु०
का काया करा मलया है। मशकायत कताा के मवद्वान अमिवक्ता का तका है
मक प्रस्तुत िािले को िध्यस्र्थता एविं सिझौता केन्द्र को सन्द्िमभात कर
मिया जाना चामहए, मजससे मक मशकायत कताा को उसकी िनरामश
वापस मिल सके।

11. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने वषा 2006 िें,
इंवियन आँयल कािपोिेशन बनाम एन.ई.पी.सी. इंविया वलवमटेि
(2006) 6 SCC 736 िें कर्थन मकया र्था, जो इस प्रकार हैः-

"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. Such a
tendency is seen in several family disputes
also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/families. 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 through criminal prosecution
should be deprecated and discouraged. In
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC
636, this Court observed:

"It is to be seen if a matter, which is
essentially of a civil nature, has been
given a cloak of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a short cut
of other remedies available in law. Before
issuing process a criminal court has to
exercise a great deal of caution. For the
accused it is a serious matter. This Court
has laid certain principles on the basis of
which the High Court is to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Jurisdiction under this section has to be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.

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, should himself be made
accountable,
at
the
end
of
such
misconceived criminal proceedings, in
accordance with law. One positive step
that can be taken by the courts, to curb
unnecessary prosecutions and harassment
of innocent parties, is to exercise their
power under Section 250 CrPC more
frequently, where they discern malice or
frivolousness or ulterior motives on the
part of the complainant. Be that as it may."

12. (2006) 6 SCC 736 इंवियन आँयल
कापोिेशन के उपरोक्त मनणाय का अनुपालन करते हुए इस न्द्यायालय
ने अवनल कुमाि तुलवसयानी बनाम उत्ति प्रदेश िाज्य 2023
SCC ONLINE ALL 733 िें कहा है मक िीवानी
प्रकृमत के िािलो िें आपरामिक प्रमक्रया का िुरुपयोग िाननीय
उच्चति न्द्यायालय के उपरोक्त मनणाय के बावजूि बढता जा रहा है।
इस न्द्यायालय के न्द्यामयक कायों का अमिकािंश सिय ऐसे िािलों से
मनपर्ने िें खचा हो जाता है, मजसिें पक्षकार अपने िीवानी प्रकृमत के
अमिकारों के मलए िन की वसूली, अनुबिंि के मनरस्तीकरण अर्थवा
अनुबिंि के मवमनमिाष्ट अनुपालन आमि का वाि प्रस्तुत करने के स्र्थान
पर प्रर्थि सूचना ररपोर्ा िजा करा िेते हैं और ऐसे करके वह न्द्याय
शुल्क अिा करने से भी बच जाते है, मजससे जनसािारण को न्द्याय
शुल्क के रुप िें सरकारी कोष िें जिा मके जाने वाले िन के लाभों
से वे विंमचत होते हैं।

13. वदलीप वसंह बनाम मध्य प्रदेश िाज्य 2021 (2
SCC779) िें भी िाननीय सवोच्च न्द्यायालय ने कहा है मक
आपरामिक प्रमक्रया मववामित िेयों की वसूली के मलए इस्तेिाल नहीं
की जानी चामहए।

14. मशकायतकताा के मवद्वान अमिवक्ता के उपरोक्त तका
से यह स्पष्ट है मक मशकायत कताा ने यह प्रर्थि सूचना ररपोर्ा अपने
रुपयों की वापसी के उद्देश्य से प्रस्तुत की है, जो मक एक िीवानी
प्रकृमत का अनुतोष है। यमि मशकायत कताा मवमि अनुसार इस
अनुतोष के मलए वाि प्रस्तुत करता है तो उसको न्द्याय शुल्क अिा
करना पड़ता। िीवानी प्रकृमत के अनुतोष को पाने के मलए
आपरामिक प्रमक्रया का िुरुपयोग करके मशकायत कताा ने न्द्याय
शुल्क का अपविंचन कर मलया है मजससे की जन सािारण को
अवािंमछत क्षमत काररत हुई है।

15. उपरोक्त तथ्यों को दृमष्टगत रखते हुए, जब मक प्रार्थी
मशकायत कताा को 34,40,000/- रु० के चेक अिा कर चुका है
तर्था चेक अनािररत होने के पश्चात िारा 138 मलखत परक्राम्य
अमिमनयि के अमतररक्त कोई भी आपरामिक कायावाही िारा 142
मलखत परक्राम्य अमिमनयि से बामित है, मशकायतकताा द्वारा कराए
गए काया प्रार्थी के मनजी पररसर िें न होकर सरकारी भवन िें कराए
गए र्थे, मजसके मलए मशकायत कताा की स्विंय की स्वीकारोमत्त है मक
उसे कोई काया आिेश प्राप्त नहीं हुआ र्था, प्रार्थी एक सहकारी सिंघ िें
अवर अमभयिंता के पि पर कायारत है तर्था जिानत मिए जाने की
िशा िें उसके न्द्याय प्रमक्रया से भागने की कोई युमक्तयुक्त आशिंका
प्रतीत नहीं होती है, न्द्यायालय का ित है मक प्रार्थी जिानत पाने का
अमिकारी है, जिानत प्रार्थाना-पत्र स्वीकार मकया जाता है।

16. आविेक सुशील कुिार विाा को मनम्नमलमखत शतों के
अिीन सिंबिंमित िमजस्रेर्/न्द्यायालय की सिंतुमष्ट के अनुसार एक
व्यमक्तगत बिंिपत्र और सिान रामश की िो जिानतें प्रस्तुत करने पर
उपरोक्त िािले िें जिानत पर ररहा मकया जाएः-
(i) आवेिक अमभयोजन साक्ष्य के सार्थ छेड़छाड़ नहीं करेगा;
(ii) आवेिक अमभयोजन पक्ष के गवाहों पर िबाव नहीं डालेगा;
10 All. Aryavrat Bank, Aligarh Vs. Smt. Malka Bansal & Ors.
609
(iii) आवेिक रायल कोर्ा द्वारा तय की गई प्रत्येक तारीख पर
उपमस्र्थत होगा।
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 609
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

Civil Revision No. 120 of 2022

Aryavrat Bank, Aligarh ...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Malka Bansal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Pandey, Sri Akash Dwivedi

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Order VII Rule 11 - Plaint - Against
rejection of application - Plaintiffs claim
ownership and possession of residential
house on suit property which was built by
first plaintiff's father-in-law on leased
land - Later mutated in name of first
plaintiff's husband and second plaintiff's
father - After their deaths, no partition or
mutation of heirs occurred - Trial Court
noted while property was in name of
husband of plaintiff no. 1 and father of
second
plaintiff
no.
2,
loans
were
sanctioned by defendant No.1 (revisionist)
to two persons, without any document
proving that suit property was mortgaged
for those loans - In instant case, Court has
to see averments in plaint, while rest
matter to be decided during trial - Plaint is
clearly
abuse
of
process
of
Court,
designed to avoid bar under Section 34 of
SARFAESI Act - Plaint is clearly barred on
wholesome understanding of plaintiffopposite parties' case, including that
deliberately suppressed, under Section 34
of SARFAESI Act - Application for rejection
of plaint allowed, plaint rejected. (Para
15, 38, 39)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. Bank of Patiala Vs Mukesh Jain & anr.,
(2017) 1 SCC 53

2.
Urvashiben
&
anr.
Vs
Krishnakant
Manuprasad Trivedi, (2019) 13 SCC 372

3. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
(2004) 4 SCC 311

4. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs Hong
Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, (2009)
8 SCC 646

5. Leelamma Mathew Vs Indian Overseas Bank
& ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1601, (Para 25)

6. Rajasthan Ltd. Vs VCK Shares & Stock
Broking Services Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 1

7. T. Arivandandam Vs T.V. Satyapal & anr.,
(1977) 4 SCC 467, (Paras 5, 6)

8. R.V. Homes (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Housing
Development Finance Corporation Ltd., 2021 0
Supreme (Telangana) 408, (Paras 11, 13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This revision is directed against an
order of Mr. Mohd. Firoz, Civil Judge (Sr.
Div.), Aligarh dated August the 22nd, 2022,
rejecting
the
defendant-revisionist'
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,
'the Code') made in Original Suit No.985
of 2021.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party Nos.1
and 2, Smt. Malka Bansal and Km. Keshvi
Bansa, who shall hereinafter be called 'the
plaintiffs' (unless the context requires a
different reference), instituted O.S. No.985