Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Arora vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242173
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27262 of 2023
Applicant :- Pradeep Arora
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Nikhil Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.
2-Vide order of this Court dated 04.08.2023, notice was issued to opposite party no. 2.
3-As per office report dated 20.11.2023, notice has been personally served upon the opposite party no. 2 but no one has put in appearance on his behalf, therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on it's merit.
4-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant-Pradeep Arora with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 05.11.2022, cognizance order dated 08.02.2023 and proceedings of Case No. 7857 of 2023 (State Vs. Pradeep Arora) arising out of Case Crime No. 111 of 2022 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sigra, District-Varanasi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
5-Brief facts which are required to be stated are that Veerbhadra Dwivedi-opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report on 31.03.2022 against the applicant for the alleged offence under Sections 420,406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. alleging inter alia that the applicant is known to him since his student life. On 21.12.2010, applicant told him that he is proprietor of a firm-Kasheeka Electric Company and urgently needed Rs. two lac for business, if he gives money, he will make you a partner of the firm and seventy five percent of the dividend of the sale will be of Pradeep Arora and twenty five percent will be of Veerbhadra Dwivedi and the same will be distributed at the end of every month. Thereafter, between 27.12.2010 and 02.02.2011, he gave total Rs. nine lac to the applicant. On 02.02.2011, a partnership deed was also executed in this regard. When he started taking up the accounts, he kept evading and used to go out of the house. Later he came to know that the said company is fake. In this way applicant cheated him and took his nine lac rupees. Investigating officer after culmination of investigation, submitted a charge-sheet dated 05.11.2022 against the applicant, on which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi took cognizance and summoned the applicant.
6-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay of about ten years on 31.03.2022 with regard to an alleged incident with took place during the year 2010-11. The opposite party no.2 had given some amount for partnership in the firm Kasheeka Electric Company of the applicant. After some time, applicant returned the amount of the opposite party no.2 and his account was cleared in the year 2011 itself. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the dispute in this case is with regard to partnership of the firm, which is purely of a civil nature and as per clause 21 of the partnership deed dated 02.02.2011 executed between the applicant and opposite party no.2, "if there be any dispute or deference arising out of this partnership or regarding management of it or the amount and/or touching the same such dispute or difference shall be referred to the arbitration of an independent person to the appointed by the partners by mutual consent." The investigating officer did not conduct a fair investigation and submitted a charge-sheet only after recording the statement of the informant.Lastly it is submitted that the impugned proceeding against the applicant is nothing but a malicious prosecution.
7-Learned counsel for the applicant referred the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
i-Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. 2006 (6) SCC736, where in Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil dispute and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
ii-Mohd. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2009 (8) SCC 751, in which it has been observed by the Apex Court that criminal Courts should ensure that proceeding before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes.
iii-Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Another versus Sudha Seetharam & Another, 2019(2) JIC 20(SC), in which the Apex Court has held that attempt to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite absence of ingredients necessary to constitute criminal offence is abuse of process of court.
iv-Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2022(1) JIC 9(SC),in which the Apex Court has held that the matter of civil nature should not be converted into criminal proceedings.
8-Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the applicant and proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned judgments.
9-Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, this Court is prima-facie satisfied that the dispute in the matter is purely civil in nature, hence criminal proceedings against the applicant which has been initiated after ten years, is abuse of process of the Court in view of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence Impugned cognizance order dated 08.02.2023 is also not sustainable at all, as the basic ingredients to constitute the alleged offence under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. are lacking in this case, hence, no offence is made out against the applicant. This Court, under the facts and circumstances of this case, feels that it is the solemn duty of the Court to protect apparently an innocent person, not to be subjected to such frivolous prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable allegations, if criminal proceeding is allowed to go on, the same will tantamount to causing grave miscarriage of justice, therefore in order to secure the ends of justice, the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicant is liable to be quashed.
10-Accordingly impugned charge-sheet dated 05.11.2022, cognizance order dated 08.02.2023 and above criminal proceedings of Case No. 7857 of 2023 (State Vs. Pradeep Arora) under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C against the applicant, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi are hereby quashed.
11-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2023
Saurabh
