IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P And Anr. - Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 724 of 2012 Alongwith Application U/S 482 No. 2966 of 2017
Decided On : 08-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the factual background and case history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the nature of disputes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's analysis on the validity of the complaints and allegations. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 4. legal standards for quashing criminal proceedings under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 19 , 25) |
| 5. final decision to quash the charge sheets and proceedings. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Bajaj, J.
1. The above two applications have been filed by the respective accused persons under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge sheet bearing No. 160/2010 dated 11th May, 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 241 of 2010, under Sections 406 , 504 and 506 IPC , Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow, and the charge sheet bearing No. 160A/2014 dated 14th July, 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 241A of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 IPC , Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow, which were registered by the rival parties against each others. Besides, the applicants have also challenged the respective cognizance orders dated 24th June, 2010 and 4th September, 2014, whereby they have been summoned in the pending criminal proceedings.
2. Briefly the facts leading to the applications are that two work orders for setting up Sewerage Treatment Plants (STP) and Effluent Treatment Plants (ETP) was placed by M/s Sawen Consultancy Services (hereinafter referred to as "Party No. I") to M/s Eco Water Solutions Technologies Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Party No. II") vide letters dated 23.06.2008 and 04.07.2008, and relating to the said works, dispute between the two companies arose and litigation also commenced. Apart from the civil litigation instituted by both sides against each other, the respective parties lodged criminal cases against each other for their prosecution through the above noticed two FIR(s). The applicants in Application u/s 482 No. 724 of 2012; titled Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh and another vs. the State of U.P. and another , are the Director and Joint Director, respectively of "Party No. I", whereas Sachchidanand Rai and Guna Kesh Rai are Director(s) of "Party No. II".
3. The Case Crime No. 241/2010 was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 3rd April, 2010 given by complainant Guna Kesh Rai, wherein it is alleged that his company "Party No. II" situated at B-38, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi received a work order from "Party No. I" situated at 409-A, 426-B, IVth Floor, Sahara Shopping Centre, Faizabad Road, Lucknow and the total worth of the two work orders was Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 47,00,000/- respectively, and against it, a sum of Rs. 23,80,500/- is outstanding. On demanding the money, the debtors abused the complainant and extended threats, who also refused to issue Form 'C'. Broadly, on these allegations, the complainant prayed for prosecution of the accused, i.e. Director(s) of "Party No. I", whereupon the case was registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 , 504 and 506 IPC .
4. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet against the accused namely Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Satendra Singh was filed, whereupon the impugned cognizance order dated 24th June, 2010 was passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow. Hence, this Application U/s 482 No. 724 of 2012.
5. The other FIR was registered at the instance of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, who had also given a written complaint to the police dated 3rd April, 2010, wherein it is alleged that they had given order for setting up Sewerage Treatment Plants (STP) and Effluent Treatment Plants (ETP) to "Party No. II", but the said firm left the job incomplete, and in this regard, a legal notice was served upon the defaulting firm. In relation to the dispute, Sachchidanand Rai called the complainant at Police Station Ghazipur, where they
Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained when the allegations do not constitute a criminal offence and are primarily civil in nature.
Point of Law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see ....
The court established that allegations of non-payment in a business context do not automatically constitute criminal offences without evidence of fraudulent intent.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
The court established that a civil dispute can coexist with criminal allegations, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not negate the possibility of criminal liability if the complaint discl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for dishonest intention and fraudulent inducement in establishing the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The judgment also....
Main Legal Point
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.