Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 14094
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ
RUCHIR RASTOGI – Appellant
Versus
PANKAJ RASTOGI – Respondent
Criminal Appeal | 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikas Singh
For the Respondents: R. Basant
The court ruled that the FIR disclosed sufficient grounds for offenses against the respondents under IPC sections, affirming the importance of upholding judicial integrity in appeals.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 457, 380, and 506 - Criminal appeal against quashing of FIR - FIR related to theft and criminal intimidation, High Court found no ingredients for offences - Court finds prima facie case established for all offences, set aside High Court's judgment. (Paras 1-17)
(B) FIR - Quashing of - High Court erred in quashing FIR; necessary ingredients of theft, lurking house trespass, and criminal intimidation were present in the FIR. (Paras 10-15)
Facts of the case:
Appellant and respondents family involved in a joint business partnership; respondent No.1 unlawfully took control of premises and its contents, leading to a dispute and subsequent FIR.
Findings of Court:
High Court’s decision to quash the FIR was incorrect; offences under IPC sections cited were established based on presented facts.
Issues: Whether the FIR disclosed sufficient grounds for the offences under IPC sections 457, 380, and 506.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence suggested a prima facie case for theft and intimidation was made out; maintaining the integrity of ongoing judicial processes is paramount.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the fir and partnership dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 10) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the elements of theft and intimidation. (Para 6 , 11 , 15) |
| 4. conclusion and ruling on the appeal. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGEMENT
VIKRAM NATH,J. Leave granted.
2. These appeals assail the correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.04.2019 passed by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos.31343 and 31370 of 2018 (filed by the respondents herein) whereby both the writ petitions were allowed and the First Information Report1 lodged by the present appellant dated 22.10.2018 1 FIR Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.10.19 18:06:10 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified registered as Case Crime No.0128 of 2018 under sections 457, 380 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602, Police Station Pheelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar was quashed. The private respondents herein were the accused in the said FIR.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are as follows:
3.1 The appellant and the private respondents belong to the same family and the pedigree is as follows:
2 IPC 3.2 The appellant and respondent No.1 entered into a partnership as Karta of their respective HUFs and a partnership deed dated 01.04.2012 was reduced into writing. The business inherited by them was run in shop No.26/59 as a tenant. The said premises was taken on rent from its owner Ms. Urmila Gupta. 3.3 Respondent No.1 gave a legal notice dated 27.05.2013 to the appellant expressing his desire to dissolve the firm w.e.f. 01.06.2013. He also retained the keys of the shop and restricted the appellant’s entry therein.
3.4 In response, the appellant gave a legal notice dated 07.06.2013 requesting the respondent 1 to withdraw his notice dated 27.05.2013. The appellant also filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19963 before the District Judge, Kanpur registered as Misc. Arbitration Application No.77/70 of 2013. The District Judge passed an interim order dated 01.07.2013 directing the parties not to 3 The 1996 Act open the shop in the absence of the other i.e. to say that both the parties or their representative would enter the shop jointly and neither of the parties will enter the shop separately. The District Judge appointed an Advocate Commissioner to serve the notice before the next date which was fixed as 06.07.2013. The aforesaid order dated 01.07.2013 is reproduced hereunder:
- “Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act alongwith munsrim report is placed on record. It deserves to be registered.
01.07.2013 The case was called.
7ga is registered while issuing notice to the opposite parties date 06.07.2013 is fixed. Till then both the parties or their representatives will enter the shop in dispute jointly. No party or its representatives will enter the shop separately. 11ga application for appointment of special messenger or advocate Commissioner is accepted Shri Prabhat Sharma Advocate is appointed as advocate Commissioner who will go to the place and serve the notice on the opposite party and before the date will file their report. The plaintiff will pay Rs.700 as fee to the advocate Commissioner and will also pay the expenses of 100 too and from.
Sd/- District Judge Kanpur Nagar”
3.5 On 02.08.2013, Arbitrators were appointed to sort out the differences between the partners i.e. appellant and respondent No.1 of the firm M/s Lala Jugal Kishore and sons at Kanpur. Before the District Judge, Kanpur, respondents appeared and filed their objections in the proceedings under section 9 of 1996 Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the material on record, the District Judge, Kanpur passed a detailed order dated 11.11.2013 disposing of the said application. The findings recorded were that the appellant had a prima facie case, there was a balance of
