Allahabad High Court
Pancham Singh Meena vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104467
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 570 of 2023
Revisionist :- Pancham Singh Meena
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
2. By means of this criminal revision, an order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in case no. 142 of 2022 (Pancham Singh Meena vs. Lalit Rathi and Another), Police Station Shikarpur, District Bulandshahr is under challenge, whereby the trial court dismissed the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3. As per allegations in the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the revisionist took a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs for 10 months from opposite party no. 2 and executed an agreement in his favour, of his land as a security for payment of loan; it is stated by the revisionist that he was given two cheques of Rs. 3 lakhs each but the payment from those cheques were received by the purchaser himself and he was not given any money and that he raised a dispute regarding this transaction and is now saying that Rs. 16 lakhs is due on him and that he kept pressuring the revisionist for executing the sale deed; meanwhile, he received summons/notices under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC (Lalit Rathi vs. Pancham Singh Meena and Another) and when he tried to inquire about the same, it was revealed that no such case is pending in the court; even the advocate, whose assistance he took to inquire into to verify whether such case has been filed, did not cooperate and did not handover the relevant papers to him.
4. On the basis of this application, the learned trial court, after hearing him took the view that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and that matter is without substance and came to dismiss the application.
5. I went through the impugned order. I do not find any perversity in the observation given by the learned trial court that the matter prima facie appears relating to land and hence, largely civil in nature. The learned trial court has refereed to certain judgments of High Court in this regard.
6. Learned AGA relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka, decided on 26.10.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1285 of 2021. In para-42 of the judgement, the observation made in M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s. NEPC India Limited and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736 has been quoted as below:-
"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors.... There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involved any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
7. In the same judgement, the Apex Court referred to certain observation given by itself in Randheer Singh vs. The State of U.P. and Others, decided on 02.09.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2021 saying that there can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transaction may have a criminal texture; however the High Court has to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In succeeding para-47, the Apex Court observed as below:-
"47. Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety."
8. I went through all the material on record. The Magistrate/court concerned cannot be expected to act upon an application in a mechanical manner. He shall be failing in his duty in case he fails to apply his mind. Settled position of law is that the Magistrate shall order for registration of a case if application 'discloses' commission of cognizable offence. In my view, the disclosure of cognizable offence cannot be construed to mean replication of words or the facts in such a manner as may fit within four corners of an offence defined in statutes. This is a common knowledge that applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may be drafted cleverly and may be dotted with sham assertions or half truths with legal advice, so as to persuade the courts to spring into action. If such a narrow and short sighted interpretation is done, it will be like playing in the hands of unscrupulous litigant. While passing an order on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the court is expected to apply its judicial mind. He is expected to be judicious, discreet and cautious and not to be swayed by mere use of certain words and legal terminology. He can certainly look for substance in the allegations and existence of life in the assertions.
9. It may usefully be noted that that despite dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the revisionist/complainant still has certain remedies open in law.
10. It is not so that once application under section- 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the Magistrate has no option but to order for registration of F.I.R. just because it discloses a cognizable offence on paper irrespective of the broad probabilities of the case. In my view the concerned court has applied judicial discretion correctly.
11. There does not appear sufficient ground calling for intervention in the order by this court in exercise of revisional powers, therefore this criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
#Vikram/-
