SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2722

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sushil Kumar Singh, Mandeep Kumar Mishra.
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate, Mandeep Kumar Mishra, Prabhat, S.M. Royekwar, Govt. Advocate, Sushil Kumar Singh.

Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained when the allegations do not constitute a criminal offence and are primarily civil in nature.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of charge sheets - Applications filed for quashing of charge sheets arising from FIRs registered under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC - Allegations made in the complaints were found to be vague and not constituting any criminal offence - Continuation of criminal proceedings deemed unjustified as the matter is primarily civil in nature. (Paras 1, 15, 18, 25, 26)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent powers of the High Court - The High Court can quash proceedings if the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence or if the proceedings are an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The applications were filed by the Directors of two companies involved in a dispute over work orders for setting up Sewerage Treatment and Effluent Treatment Plants. Both parties lodged FIRs against each other alleging various offences, which were primarily civil disputes regarding contract breaches.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the allegations in the complaints did not constitute any criminal offences, and the disputes were of a civil nature. The charge sheets were quashed as unjustified.

Issues: Whether the allegations in the complaints constituted a criminal offence or were merely civil disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations made did not meet the necessary elements to constitute the offences charged, emphasizing that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal matters.

Result: Both applications allowed; charge sheets quashed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top