Dinesh Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 35

VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL
Dinesh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harsh Sethi, Adv. Mr. Anant Nigam, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Parashar, Adv. Mr. Neil Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Raghav Luthra, Adv. Mr. Nitin Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Chaurasiya, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Ms. Niyati Kohli, Adv. Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Anju Prakash, Adv. Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Avanish Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Ahmer Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Girish Ringe, AOR Mr. Saurabh Soni, Adv. Ms. Megha Mukerjee, Adv. Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harsh Sethi, Adv. Mr. Anant Nigam, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Parashar, Adv. Mr. Neil Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Raghav Luthra, Adv. Mr. Nitin Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Chaurasiya, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, AOR

JUDGMENT :

(Vikram Nath, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.)

Leave granted.

2. Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to go scot-free. They should be put to strict terms and conditions including costs. It is time to check with firmness such litigation initiated and laced with concealment, falsehood, and forum hunting. Even State actions or conduct of government servants being party to such malicious litigation should be seriously reprimanded. In the instant case, we find initiation of criminal proceedings before a forum which had no territorial jurisdiction by submitting incorrect facts and giving frivolous reasons to entertain such complaints. A closer look at the respondents actions reveals more than just an inappropriate use of jurisdiction. The core issue of the dispute, which involves financial transactions and agreements, clearly places it in the realm of civil and commercial law. Yet, the respondent chose to pursue criminal charges in a quest to abuse the criminal justice system with a motive to seek personal vengeance rather than seeking true justice. This unnecessary turning of a civil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 35

VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDALDinesh Gupta – AppellantVersusState of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL
Dinesh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent