Santosh Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey and Shri Abhijat Pratap Singh, Advocates on behalf of opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following prayer:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances of the case, stated in an accompanying affidavit, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the entire criminal prosecution of Criminal Case No. 11377/2024-State versus Santosh Singh arising out of Case Crime No. 694/2022 under section 409/420/506 IPC registered at Police Station PGI, district Lucknow pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vis-à-vis charge sheet dated 30.08.2023, summoning order dated 09.02.2024 vis-à-vis all consequential orders being legally not valid in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the aforesaid application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, proceeding of Criminal Case No. 11377/2024 State versus Santosh Singh arising out of Case Crime No. 694/2022 under section 409/420/506 IPC registered at Police Station PGI, 2 A482 No. 6966 of 2025 district Lucknow pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vis-à-vis charge sheet dated 30.08.2023, summoning order dated 09.02.2024 vis-à-vis all consequential orders may kindly be stayed otherwise, the applicant would suffer from irreparable loss and injury, which may not be compensated in terms of money."

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the company - M/s Adinath Infrastructure entered into an agreement with the company, namely, M/s SEW Infrastructure Limited, and thereafter the aforesaid contract was sublet with oral contract to the opposite party no. 2 and as an advance, Rs.51,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs) was taken, and it is alleged that rupees 51 lakhs is taken by the applicant in the company's account. He submits that, thereafter, a dispute crept into the matter and ultimately this came up to this court, when this Court set aside the order passed by the revisional court and remitted the matter back and directed the revisional court to decide the same while considering the settlement agreement dated

08.02.2024, which is still pending consideration. He has drawn attention towards the statement which finds place in parcha no. 3 dated 02.01.2023 that the opposite party no.2 himself has replied that the dispute between the applicant and the opposite party no.3 is running and that will be cleared soon.

5. Further submission is that, in fact, the matter is a dispute regarding transaction of amount, particularly with respect to a business, and, because of certain issues between the two parties, i.e., the applicant and the opposite party no.3, the matter is pending consideration before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, for deciding the same while considering the settlement agreement and, therefore, the further dispute between the applicant as well as the opposite party no.2 could not be cleared. He submits that, as soon as the dispute between the M/s SEW Infrastructure and the M/s Adinath Infrastructure is settled, a further settlement could be done with the opposite party no.2, to which the opposite party is not denying.

6. In addition, he argued that, in fact, the dispute is the payment of an amount regarding some business transaction, and if the opposite party no.2 is aggrieved in any way, he may approach the court of civil competence, if he so desires, but there is no criminal intent to commit 3 A482 No. 6966 of 2025 cheat and fraud, as is narrated in the FIR. Concluding his argument, he submits that the present criminal proceeding is sheer abuse of process of law and the applicant is being harassed for his no fault. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the opposite party no.2 has given about rupees 51 lakhs in the company's account, which has been misappropriated by committing cheat and fraud, and the applicant, who is collecting the scrap, is neither supplying the same to him, nor the amount is being repaid back to the opposite party no.2. He further submits that the criminal intent is apparent from the act of the applicant, and thus, after thorough investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the matter is proceeded against him, and therefore, no interference is warranted.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the dispute is with respect to collecting some scrap in lieu of the amount given in the company's account, whereas it is an admitted position that the main party, i.e. M/s SEW Infrastructure have an agreement with the applicant's company and the settlement agreement is still pending consideration before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and could not take final shape. Furthermore, the parcha no.3 dated 02.01.2023 is also evident that the opposite party no.2 is having the knowledge that there is a dispute between the company headed by the applicant as well as the SEW Infrastructure. Prima facie, there seems to be some dispute regarding the collection of scrap in lieu of the amount given to the applicant and the matter pertains to the performance of an oral promise i.e. in the nature of a commercial dispute.

9. Thus, the matter requires consideration.

10. Let the notice be issued to the opposite party no.3 returnable at an early date.

11. Steps within a week. 4 A482 No. 6966 of 2025

12. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 06.10.2025.

13. In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavits.

14. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 11377 of 2024 "State versus Santosh Singh", arising out of Case Crime No. 694 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420, 506 of IPC, Police Station PGI, District Lucknow, against the applicants shall remain stayed. August 26, 2025 Mohd. Sharif (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey and Shri Abhijat Pratap Singh, Advocates on behalf of opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following prayer:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances of the case, stated in an accompanying affidavit, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the entire criminal prosecution of Criminal Case No. 11377/2024-State versus Santosh Singh arising out of Case Crime No. 694/2022 under section 409/420/506 IPC registered at Police Station PGI, district Lucknow pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vis-à-vis charge sheet dated 30.08.2023, summoning order dated 09.02.2024 vis-à-vis all consequential orders being legally not valid in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the aforesaid application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, proceeding of Criminal Case No. 11377/2024 State versus Santosh Singh arising out of Case Crime No. 694/2022 under section 409/420/506 IPC registered at Police Station PGI, 2 A482 No. 6966 of 2025 district Lucknow pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vis-à-vis charge sheet dated 30.08.2023, summoning order dated 09.02.2024 vis-à-vis all consequential orders may kindly be stayed otherwise, the applicant would suffer from irreparable loss and injury, which may not be compensated in terms of money."

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the company - M/s Adinath Infrastructure entered into an agreement with the company, namely, M/s SEW Infrastructure Limited, and thereafter the aforesaid contract was sublet with oral contract to the opposite party no. 2 and as an advance, Rs.51,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs) was taken, and it is alleged that rupees 51 lakhs is taken by the applicant in the company's account. He submits that, thereafter, a dispute crept into the matter and ultimately this came up to this court, when this Court set aside the order passed by the revisional court and remitted the matter back and directed the revisional court to decide the same while considering the settlement agreement dated

08.02.2024, which is still pending consideration. He has drawn attention towards the statement which finds place in parcha no. 3 dated 02.01.2023 that the opposite party no.2 himself has replied that the dispute between the applicant and the opposite party no.3 is running and that will be cleared soon.

5. Further submission is that, in fact, the matter is a dispute regarding transaction of amount, particularly with respect to a business, and, because of certain issues between the two parties, i.e., the applicant and the opposite party no.3, the matter is pending consideration before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, for deciding the same while considering the settlement agreement and, therefore, the further dispute between the applicant as well as the opposite party no.2 could not be cleared. He submits that, as soon as the dispute between the M/s SEW Infrastructure and the M/s Adinath Infrastructure is settled, a further settlement could be done with the opposite party no.2, to which the opposite party is not denying.

6. In addition, he argued that, in fact, the dispute is the payment of an amount regarding some business transaction, and if the opposite party no.2 is aggrieved in any way, he may approach the court of civil competence, if he so desires, but there is no criminal intent to commit 3 A482 No. 6966 of 2025 cheat and fraud, as is narrated in the FIR. Concluding his argument, he submits that the present criminal proceeding is sheer abuse of process of law and the applicant is being harassed for his no fault. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the opposite party no.2 has given about rupees 51 lakhs in the company's account, which has been misappropriated by committing cheat and fraud, and the applicant, who is collecting the scrap, is neither supplying the same to him, nor the amount is being repaid back to the opposite party no.2. He further submits that the criminal intent is apparent from the act of the applicant, and thus, after thorough investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the matter is proceeded against him, and therefore, no interference is warranted.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the dispute is with respect to collecting some scrap in lieu of the amount given in the company's account, whereas it is an admitted position that the main party, i.e. M/s SEW Infrastructure have an agreement with the applicant's company and the settlement agreement is still pending consideration before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and could not take final shape. Furthermore, the parcha no.3 dated 02.01.2023 is also evident that the opposite party no.2 is having the knowledge that there is a dispute between the company headed by the applicant as well as the SEW Infrastructure. Prima facie, there seems to be some dispute regarding the collection of scrap in lieu of the amount given to the applicant and the matter pertains to the performance of an oral promise i.e. in the nature of a commercial dispute.

9. Thus, the matter requires consideration.

10. Let the notice be issued to the opposite party no.3 returnable at an early date.

11. Steps within a week. 4 A482 No. 6966 of 2025

12. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 06.10.2025.

13. In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavits.

14. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 11377 of 2024 "State versus Santosh Singh", arising out of Case Crime No. 694 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420, 506 of IPC, Police Station PGI, District Lucknow, against the applicants shall remain stayed. August 26, 2025 Mohd. Sharif (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)