Janardan Prasad Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8598 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1577 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Janardan Prasad Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendra Nath Singh,Dharmaveer Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 7.11.2020 passed by the Session Judge, Mau in Crl. Revision No. 55 of 2019 as well as order dated 1.3.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Crl. Misc. Case No. 12 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 334 of 2017, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mau and further direct the learned court below to reconsider the protest application of the petitioner dated 24.7.2018 filed against the final report submitted in Case Crime No. 334 of 2017, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Mau.

The impugned order dated 7.11.2020 has been passed after placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Application u/s 482 No. 26932 of 2010, Khurram Siddiqui Vs. State of UP. and others, in which following is held:-

"It is thus, well settled that a civil as well as criminal proceeding in regard to same act may be launched and continued simultaneously. If certain acts constitute an offence, the criminal proceeding can not be held up or kept in abeyance till the finalization of the civil proceeding. Therefore, the view of the courts belongs were not correct."

The court below has further placed reliance on Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (paras 12, 13, 18 & 20), State Farm Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjar Agro Foods Ltd. (2005) 12 SCC 502, Devendra and others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2009 7 SCC 495.

The court below has further placed reliance on Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy Vs. Sudha Seetharam in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2019, Special Leave Petition No. (Crl.) 1434 pf 2018, the following is held:-

"The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of criminal procedure has to be exercised with care. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of process of the court."

This Court finds no merit in the present case, at this stage. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.7.2021

A.P. Pandey