Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J
Yogeshwar Raj Nagar And Another – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4173 of 2018
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2701 of 2019
Decided on : 06-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 406 and 468 - Quashing of orders - The petitioners challenged the orders summoning them under Section 406 I.P.C. and dismissing their revision, arguing the complaint was barred by limitation and constituted double jeopardy - The court found the complaint filed after a delay of over 6 years lacked special circumstances to justify its acceptance after a final report was previously accepted - The court emphasized the necessity for judicial application of mind in summoning orders and deemed the impugned orders cryptic and unsustainable. (Paras 10, 28, 37)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Double Jeopardy - The right against double jeopardy was invoked, asserting that the same cause of action could not lead to subsequent criminal proceedings after a final report was accepted - The court reiterated that a second complaint is permissible only under exceptional circumstances. (Paras 10, 30)
(C) Criminal Procedure - Summoning Orders - The court reiterated that summoning orders must reflect application of mind and cannot be issued mechanically, requiring sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. (Paras 33, 36)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose from a family conflict regarding the management of a school established by the petitioners' father, leading to multiple legal proceedings, including a complaint under Section 406 I.P.C. after a final report exonerating the petitioners was accepted.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the second complaint was not maintainable due to the absence of new facts or special circumstances and that the previous final report acceptance barred further proceedings.
Issues: The court addressed whether a second complaint could be entertained after the acceptance of a final report and the implications of double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the complaint lacked sufficient grounds, failed to demonstrate special circumstances for a second complaint, and criticized the lower court's failure to apply judicial reasoning in its summoning order.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Anish Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Both the aforesaid cases are arising out of the same cause of action and facts of both the cases are similar to each other. In view thereof, both the cases are being decided by this common judgement.
3. The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 28.04.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2018 ( Yogeshwar Raj Nagar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another ) as well as the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bulandshahar, in Complaint Case No. 536 of 2017 ( Shailja vs. Yogeshwar ) under Section 406 of I.P.C. Vide order dated 06.10.2017, the petitioners were summoned for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. in the aforesaid complaint case filed by the opposite party no. 2 against which a criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2018.
4. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicant- Smt. Shailja Nagar, who is the opposite party no. 2 in the writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 22.11.2012, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, in Misc. Case (Final Report) No. 679 of 2007 (Smt. Shailja Nagar and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 33 of 2005 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 476 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sikandarabad, District- Bulandshahar, whereby the Final Report submitted by the Investigation Officer has been accepted.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 and the husband of the opposite party no. 2 are the real brothers. The father of the petitioner no.1 and the husband of the opposite party no. 2 had established a Society known as ‘Spring Dale Academy’ at Railway Colony Road, Sikandrabad, District- Bulandshahar, with an aim and object to impart education by establishing a reputed public school. In pursuance of the object of establishment of Society, the school was duly established and affiliated to the CBSE Board. The father of petitioner no. 1 had executed a Will on 06.03.2003 in favour of petitioner no. 1 and another Will on 10.03.2003 and subsequent thereto, he had died on 17.03.2003. Thereafter, the name of the said Society was changed as ‘Rajbala Spring Dale Academy’.
6. After the death of Major Deshraj Singh, father of the petitioner no. 1, there arose a dispute with regard to the management and affairs of the said Society and the school, which was established by the Society. It appears that the management of the Society was taken over by the petitioner no. 1. Aggrieved by the same various proceedings were initiated by the opposite party no. 2 including the registration of the First Information Report being Case Crime No. C-33 of 2005 on 03.09.2005 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station- Sikandrabad, District-Bulandshahar.
7. Investigation of the aforesaid F.I.R. was concluded and thereafter a Charge-Sheet No. 226 of 2006 dated 27.06.2006 was submitted. Thereupon, an order for further investigation was passed. After the further investigation and on the basis of statements of witnesses and verification of documents, sufficient evidence was not found against the accused persons. Thereupon, the Final Report was submitted. Against the Final Report, the opposite party no. 2 had submitted a protest petition. After submission of the protest petition and despite opportunity granted, opposite party no. 2 failed to appear before the Court. Accordingly, by an ex-parte order dated 22.11.2012 the Final Report was accepted by the Court. Thereupon, various other disputes continued between the parties. However, the opposite party no. 2 did not choose to challenge the
A second complaint on the same cause of action after acceptance of a final report is maintainable only in exceptional circumstances; summoning orders must reflect judicial application of mind.
The amendment to Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry before issuing summons against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction, to prevent false complaints....
A subsequent criminal complaint based on the same facts as a previously accepted final report is not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances are shown; mere acceptance of a final report does no....
A detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning of an accused person.
The Magistrate must conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before issuing summons if the accused resides outside its jurisdiction, as this is mandatory to prevent harassment through false co....
The inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, and summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter requiring the applica....
(1) Merely because list of witnesses was not filed alongwith protest petition, it cannot be said that protest petition cannot be treated as a complaint.(2) Fair, just and proper investigation is esse....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
