High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148056 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29445 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Pankaj Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant. 2. Applicant and one another person were summoned U/s 406 IPC by impugned order dated 18.04.2024 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. For reference, said order is quoted below -: “ददनननक-18.04.2024 कक हह। मपरल उसकन ठपकन अशकक कत मनर यनदव कक पररवनद पपश हहआ। पतनवलल आज तलबल हपतत दनयत हह। तलबल बहस पर पररवनददनल कक तरफ सप उपसससत दवदनन अधधवकन व पररवनददनल कक सतनन गयन। सनकपप मम पररवनददनल नप अपनप बयनन अनतगरत धनरन 200 दन०प०सन० मम गलनस, दक घटनन जनवरल 2017 सशपस कसन दकयन हह एलययमलदनयम, डकर कप फत टकर व सकक दवकप तन दकनन हह। पनकज पनणडपय व अनपक कत मनर यनदव मपरल दतकनन आए। पनकज नप बकलन कनर शकरम मम कत छ कनम लपनन हह तक आपकक दतकनन सप कत छ मटपररयल चनदहए। जनन पहचनन, कक वजह सप ममनप हनन कर दल। पनकज नप बतनयन कक कनर शकरम मम जक कनम लगन हह, दमलन हह। मटपररयल आप अगर दप दमगग तक पहसप कक दचनतन न कररएगन। अशकक कत मनर यनदव कप दनरन मतझप एक चपक र 50,000/- ( रपयप कक पनप हहई। जब ममनप चपक लगनई तक वह बनउनस हक गई। महनप ललगल नकदटस नहग ददयन सन। फकन सप ममनप चपक बनउनस कक सयचनन पनकज पनणडपय कक दल। जवनब मम बकलन खनतप मम पहसन कम हकनप कक वजह सप चपक बनउनस हक गयन हकगन। पहसन आपकक बनद मम दमगप। उसकप बनद जब भल कनल करतप तक पनकज बकलतप दक हम बनहर हह जब वनपस आएनगप तक पहसन दमगप। अशकक कत मनर भल बनहर हकनप कक बनत बकलतन सन और जब ललट कप आएनगप तक पहसन दपनप कक बनत कहतन सन। एक दक बनर घर भल अपनप लडकप कक भपजन तक घरवनलप घर पर न हकनप कक कहकर ललटन दपतप सप। एक बनर मम और मपरन लडकन दकनन घर दक पनपन कह रहप हम पनपन गए सप पनकज पनणडपय तक उनकन लडकन बकलन घर नहग हम। घर मम अनदर जननन हम लकगन कक उदचत नहग लगन तक सननप ददयन गए तक पतधलस नप भल धलखल। मतझप मपरन मटपररयल जक पचनस हजनर) दशकनयत नहग दकयन उसकन भल पपममट नहग सन उसकक ककमत र० 1,13,088 सल, गयन। मतझप और कत छ नहग कहनन हह। पसततत मनमलप मम धनरन 200 परलदकत करनयन गयन हह। इसकप अदतररक धनरन 202 पररवनददनल दनरन पल०डबलयय०-01 करनयन गयन हह। अपनप कसननक कक समधसरत करनप कप पतधलस अधलकक फतपहपतर कक पपदषत पनसरननपत कक छनयनपदत, रसलद कक मयल पदत, सवयन कन आधनरकनडर कक फकटककनपल दनधखल दकयन गयन हह। दन०प०सन० मम पररवनददनल दनरन सवयन कक दन०प०सन० कप अनतगरत कप रप मम अलकक दतवनरल कक परलदकत धलयप पररवनददनल दनरन रधजसटटल डनक चपक वनपसल मपमन कक पदत व चपक कक मयल पदत, पररवनददनल कप पतनवलल कन समयक अवलककन दकयन गयन। दवदनन अधधवकन कक तलबल कप पश पर सतनन गयन एवन द०प०सन० व 202 पतनवलल पर उपलबध समसत अदभलपखलय एवन सनकलगण कप बयनन अनतगरत धनरन 200 द०प०सन० कप आधनर पर दवपकलगण दनरन पररवनददनल कप सनस सनमनन कप कय दवकय कक लपकर धकखनधडल करनप कन दवरद पसम दषयन धनरन 406 भन० कक तय दकयन गयन हह। द० सन० कन अपरनध बनतन पतलत हकतन हह। अनय कसन पररवनददनल दनरन मनत घटनन कक गमभलर करनप कप आशय सप दकयन गयन हह। अतत मतसलजमनन पनकज पनणडपय व अशकक कत मनर यनदव उपरकक धनरनओन मम तलब दकयप जननप यकगय हह। धजससप उनकप ” 3. I find merit in argument of learned counsel that even contents of statement of complainant and witnesses are considered to be true, there could be no entrustment either on applicant or another person as well as that there is no specific allegation against applicant of entrustment except at the time of first meeting, he has introduced the another person to complainant. 4. In above background, other circumstances becomes relevant that occurrence is of the year 2017. A cheque given by co-accused to complainant was bounced on 08.03.2017. The complainant has not undertaken any proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act as well as complainant was filed at very belated stage on 24.06.2020. As such it may be a case that even cognizance would be barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 5. In order to further appreciate above submissions, I have carefully perused above referred impugned order as well as statement of complainant and witnesses. 6. Facts referred above have not been much disputed even in statements. There is no reasonable explanation for delay in approaching the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has not even referred contents of statements recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in brief. Learned Magistrate has also not considered above referred facts and committed legal error. 7. In aforesaid circumstances, a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of U.P. and another (2023) 3 SCC 423 would be relevant that complainant has tried to cloak a criminal case to a dispute which was essentially of civil nature. For reference, relevant part is quoted below -: “28. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the assertions made in the complaint and the pre- summoning evidence led by Respondent 2 complainant fail to establish the conditions and incidence of the penal liability set out under Sections 405, 420 and 471IPC, as the allegations pertain to alleged breach of contractual obligations. Pertinently, this Court, in a number of cases, has noticed attempts made by parties to invoke jurisdiction of criminal courts, by filing vexatious criminal complaints by camouflaging allegations which were ex facie outrageous or pure civil claims. These attempts are not to be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold. To avoid prolixity, we would only like to refer to the judgment of this Court in Thermax Ltd. v. K.M. Johny [Thermax Ltd. v. K.M. Johny, (2011) 13 SCC 412 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 650] , as it refers to earlier case laws in copious detail. 29. In Thermax [Thermax Ltd. v. K.M. Johny, (2011) 13 SCC 412 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 650] , it was pointed out that the court should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegations may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. The court must cautiously examine the facts to ascertain whether they only constitute a civil wrong, as the ingredients of criminal wrong are missing. A conscious application of the said aspects is required by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion.” 8. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 18.04.2024 passed by A.C.J.M., Court-3, Fatehpur in Complaint Case No. 10206/2020 (Laxmi Devi vs. Pankaj Pandey) U/s 406 IPC, pending before A.C.J.M., Court-3, Fatehpur does not survive, hence, is set aside. 9. However, this order is passed without issuing notice to opposite party-2, therefore, this application is disposed of by remitting the matter back to concerned Court to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within 3 months after hearing complainant and taking note of Deepak Gaba (supra). Order Date :- 11.9.2024 N. Sinha