Mani Prakash Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 510 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mani Prakash Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70532
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40507 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Mani Prakash Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Mehrotra,Swetashwa Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kuldeep Kumar Gupta,Ashutosh Diljun,G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Pandey,Sarwam Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no. 1 and Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing impugned summoning order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti in Complaint Case No. 15516 of 2022 (Harishankar vs. Sanjay Kumar and others) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. P.S. Kotwali, District-Basti as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 15516 of 2022 (Harishankar vs. Sanjay Kumar and others) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. P.S. Kotwali, District-Basti pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti.

3. As per the complaint version, Ramswaroop Pandey was the grandfather (Baba) of plaintiff Harishankar Om Mahadev Prasad. He has two sons ? Chandraprakash Pandey and Maniprakash Pandey. On 02.01.1992, grandfather (Baba) Ramswaroop Pandey and father (Papa) Chandraprakash Pandey passed away in a road accident. There was a petrol pump in the name of grandfather (Baba). After his death, the right of managing the firm was given to mother Shashibala Pandey, grand-mother (Dadi) Pankunwari Devi and elder brother of the father Maniprakash Pandey (Bade papa) and to the mother of the complainant, by duly informing to District Supply Officer on 05.06.1992. The plaintiff was of 04 years at that time. Renewal of the firm was being done in the name of aforesaid three person only.

4. Out of these three partners, Grandmother (Dadi) passed away in 2010 and mother Shashibala in 2008 and thereafter the firm was being managed by elder brother of the father (Tau) as per the agreement. In the income tax, Shashibala Pandey was shown as receiving 1/3rd of the share, but the same was not transferred in the account. Aggrieved by which a claim in the civil suit was filed, wherein the defendant was ordered to give money to the complainant but he did not pay the same.

5. The person incharge of the business and Mani Prakash together in connivance prepared fake affidavits and notarized statements of the complainant & the two sisters wherein all the rights were relinquished in favour of Mani Prakash Pandey to run the firm alone without any consideration to the other share holders. Till date, the applicant company was not paid a single penny to the complainant.

6. The applicant claimed that since the other co-sharers have relinquished their shares, so there was no question of sharing any profit.

7. He further submits that the mother of the opposite party No. 2 died in the year 2008 and thereafter the applicant had applied to the corporation to run the petrol pump singly. This application was accompanied by a NOC.

8. When the opposite party No. 2 came to know about the forged documents, affidavit and NOC, he filed a complaint in the year 2019 stating that the affidavit as well as the NOC were forged documents.

9. The Magistrate after adducing evidence had issued summons on 01.10.2024 and the same is being assailed by means of the instant application.

10. Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint reveals a long standing family dispute between the parties since the year 1992. He further submits that the entire proceedings initiated by the opposite party No. 2 is a malicious proceedings having drawn after 5 years of the alleged incident. He further submits that the opposite party No. 2 also made a similar request before the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and the same was rejected and it was then the opposite party No. 2 initiated the instant proceedings.

11. He further submits that the co-accused who were the officials of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited who were made party and they had moved an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 39674 of 2024 (Sanjay Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another) and this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 had granted interim order and the applicant is seeking the identical order from this Court.

12. He submits that the summoning order has been passed in a very mechanical manner. He further submits that while passing the summoning order, the Magistrate had not mentioned sufficient grounds for proceeding. He further submits that even if the averments made in the complaint assuming to be correct, it still does not come under the ambit of Section 420 IPC. He further submits that the witness of the opposite party No. 2 had not supported the complaint version of forgery.

13. In support of his submissions, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624. The relevant paragraph No. 34 is extracted herein under:-

"34. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State vehemently submitted that considering the gross criminal antecedents of the appellants before us, the criminal proceedings may not be quashed. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State in her written submissions has furnished details in regard to the antecedents of the appellants. A bare look at the chart may give an impression that the appellants are history sheeters and hardened criminals. However, when it comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter. Initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh consequences for the persons named as accused. In Directorate of Revenue and another v. Mohammed Nisar Holia, (2008) 2 SCC 370, this Court explicitly recognises the right to not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds as one of the underlying mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained. It goes without saying that the State owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at the same time it also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed."

14. He further submits that the proceedings initiated by the opposite party No. 2 is nothing but a pure abuse of the process of the Court.

15. Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 submits that an agreement was entered between the mother of the opposite party No. 2 and the applicant on 14.12.1992 wherein it was decided that 1/3 share of the profit from running the petrol pump would be given to the mother of the opposite party No. 2 but the same was never passed on. The mother of the opposite party No. 2 was left with no alternative except to file a civil suit and also lodge an FIR.

16. Thereafter on the assurance given by the applicant of sharing the profit, there was a compromise, and on the basis of compromise, the final report was filed in the criminal case. However, the suit was decreed against the applicant. Against it, he had filed a recall which is still pending. He further submits that even after the decree of the suit as well as the compromise which was arrived in the criminal proceedings, no share of the profit was ever handed over to the family of the opposite party No. 2. The case of the opposite party No. 2 is that the applicant had forged a notary affidavit in which the signatures of the opposite party No. 2 and her sisters were made. On the basis of that affidavit, the entire petrol pump was handed over to the applicant in connivance with the other officials of the Oil Company.

17. When this fact was brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 25.09.2018 given by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, wherein it was informed that the opposite party No. 2 had given a 'no objection certificate'. It was then he came to know about the commission of fraud by the applicant and thereafter he initiated the present criminal proceedings against the applicant and hence there is no delay in initiating the instant criminal proceedings.

18. He further submits that the case of the other co-accused who happened to be the officials of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited are on at a different footing as that of the applicant.

19. He further submits that the allegations levelled in the complaint can only be adjudicated upon after adducing proper evidence in the trial.

20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

21. Apparently in this case, the applicant just to usurp the petrol pump and not hand over the profit to the other party allegedly had fabricated the documents so that the entire petrol pump may be allotted to him.

22. It is apparent that the case of the applicant is different from the other co-accused who happens to be the officials of the Oil Company. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the applicant had not paid any amount which they had agreed to pay as per compromise to the opposite party No. 2 and as per the decree passed in civil suit. The applicant had been taking the opposite party No. 2 for a ride even after the suit was decreed in their favour, nothing has been paid. As far as the NOC is concerned whether it is forged and fabricated, it cannot be seen by this Court and this can be seen by the trial court only after adducing evidence.

23. The case of the co-accused is distinguishable from the case of the present applicant. Since the trial is pending, this Court is not making observation on merits.

24. I see no merit in the instant application and is accordingly DISMISSED.

25. It is informed that because of the interim order passed in favour of the co-accused, the trial is not proceeding. Since the role of the applicant as well as the other co-accused are different, the trial of the applicant shall be separated and the trial against the applicant may start and shall proceed in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Order Date :- 2.5.2025

Jaswant