Sardar Mohan Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 23133 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171933
 
Court No. - 69
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4874 of 1998
 

 
Applicant :- Sardar Mohan Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Manish Tiwary,V.C.Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,S.K.Garg
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. Heard Sri Atharva Dixit, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records.

2. Notice was issued to the opposite party no. 3 vide order dated 11.12.1998. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 3. despite the matter being taken up in the revised list.

3. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Sardar Mohan Singh with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to quash the complaint and order dated 13.10.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate-III Gorakhpur in Cr. Case NO. 1855/97 Rama Shanker Pandey Vs. Sardar Mohan Singh under Section 506(1) I.P.C. pending int he court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur. It is further necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble court be pleased to stay further proceedings in Case No. 1855/1997 Rama Shanker Pandey Vs. Sardar Mohan Singh under Section 506(1) of I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-Gorakhpur including the order of issuing bailable warrant, during the pendency of this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure of this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code in this Hon'ble court."

4. The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 2.12.1994 was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant for offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. with the allegations that he is the Manager of Mssrs. Raj Theatre, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur. The applicant Sardar Mohan Singh of Mssrs. Christine Films Pvt. Ltd. is the Power of Attorney holder of Lucky Associates Film Colony, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and is a distributor of films. He has one office at Raj Cinema road, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur where his agent S.K. Kansal works. On 3.5.1992 at about 10:00 A.M. Sardar Mohan Singh talked to him on phone and told him that there is a new film by the name of "Inteha Pyar Ki" which is being screened before Sensor Board and he has seen it which is a good film which will be screened for at least eight weeks successfully in Gorakhpur and he is doing the work of distribution of the same. Swami Seeta Ram Tekriwal of Mssrs. Raj Theatre was told to consider it who after some time met S.K. Kansal and he also appreciated the film a lot and told to screen it in his picture hall for which he would talk to Sardar Mohan Singh about the terms and conditions. On telephonic talks, Sardar Mohan Singh said that he would give the rent of the theater of the complainant till the time the film is screened which was Rs. 18,500/- per month and after it after deducting the rent he would give Rs. 75,000/- more and the remaining money will be taken by him.Sardar Mohan Singh demanded Rs. 75,000/- as advance. Film "Inteha Pyar Ki" was a flop film which was not seen by Sardar Mohan Singh before Sensor Board and it was only with an intention to commit fraud and cheating with the complainant. He said false things and demanded advance money for which his agent S.K. Kansal also agreed in conspiracy. An agreement for screening of the film was entered into between the parties and S.K. Kansal on 6.5.1992 and a draft of Rs. 75,000/- by Raj Theater dated 8.5.1992 payable to Christine Film Madras was prepared given to S.K. Kansal, the agent of Sardar Mohan Singh. The film came for screening on 15.5.1992 and did not take off. Till the time the film was in the theater after taking the rent of the theater only Rs. 3,000/- was left. On demand of the remaining amount from Sardar Mohan Singh and his agent S.K. Kansal they gave various excuses. A demand notice dated 8.9.1992 was sent on which Sardar Mohan Singh gave a reply dated 9.9.1993 that Director of the Company is outside the country and when he returns, the matter would be settled but later on it came to be known that the Director had not gone anywhere. There was regular demand of money through phone but the same was being avoided. Again on 21.3.1994 a notice was sent which was received by the accused about which an information was sent through his agent that he would not make the payment and it was said that whenever he needs money he does such acts with persons and lures them and takes money from them. He further said that one cannot survive in this business without this and if the complainant runs after the money, he would not be left alive. Accused has by cheating taken Rs. 75,000/- and on a demand is extending threats. It is prayed that evidence be called and the accused be summoned and punished.

5. On the said complaint the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded after which vide order dated 25.2.1995 the said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. against which a revision was preferred by the complainant in which the revisional court although agreed with the findings under Section 406, 420 I.P.C. but remanded the matter back for reconsideration in so far as it related to the offences under Section 504, 506 I.P.C. Vide order dated 13.10.1997, the trial then summoned the applicant for offences under Section 506(1) I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the entire reading of the complaint would go to show that the dispute between the parties is with regard to settlement of accounts. It is argued that the allegation is only to the effect that during the course of discussion with regard to the settlement of account threat was extended to the complainant by the accused after which the applicant has been summoned. It is argued that in so far as the offences under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. are concerned, the trial court and the revisional court did not find the same to be true and hence the complaint was dismissed with regard to the same. It is argued that even with regard to the offence under Section 504 I.P.C., although revisional court had remanded the matter back to the trial court for being considered for it but the trial court even did not find the same to be true and did not summon the applicant for the said offence. It is argued that the dispute is purely civil in nature and has been given a colour of a criminal case just by exaggeration. It is argued that even the circumstances of the case as can be seen from the reading of the complaint go to show that there were notices for demand of money by the complainant which his own version could not be paid to him and then there was telephonic conversation for the same in the event of which threat was extended. It is argued that the case as can be seen in full would go to show that the allegation with regard to the section under which the applicant has been summoned is an exaggeration. It is argued while placing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and another Vs. State of U.P. and others: Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023, decided on 8.8.2023 and by placing paragraph 30 of the same, it is argued that the Court has to look into the facts with care and closly and also the averments in the complaint and also has to look into the other attending circumstances emerging from the records of the case and the averments and then try to read in between the lines. It is argued that going through the complaint, the order impugned and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, it is clear that the allegation against the applicant is an exaggeration and the proceedings have been initiated only as there was a dispute of accounting between the parties. It is argued as such the proceedings by quashed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing.

8. After having heard, learned counsels for parties and perusing the judgment as relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, it is clear that the dispute as initially arose between the parties was with regard to non-payment of money and with regard to a dispute in accounting. Two notices were sent by the complainant for the same to the applicant, one of which was replied to by the applicant, even there were telephonic conversation for the settlement of accounts in which the allegation is of the extending treat of life to the complainant. In so far as the allegation with regard to offences under Sections 405, 420 and 504 I.P.C. are concerned, the same did not find favour with the trial court and the revisional court and were not the offences in which the applicant was summoned.

9. Looking to the attending circumstances and the reading of the complaint, the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, the summoning order, the order of the revisional court and the judgment of the Apex Court the complaint and the proceedings arising out of the same deserves to be quashed.

10. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicant.

11. The present application is allowed.

12. The proceedings of the present case as well as the summoning order in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 24.8.2023

Aiman

(Samit Gopal,J.)