Ram Milan Pandey and Another v. State and Another) and summoning order dated

approached the District Magistrate for lodging of the first information report. However, no action was taken. Thereafter on

20.04.2015, the concerned Station House Officer had given a letter to the complainant to appear before the Circle Officer, Kalwari on

22.04.2015. On 08.08.2015 also the S.H.O. concerned called the complainant, however, when the complainant was going through the market, then applicant no. 2 had uttered caste based remark and had abused at a public place.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of aforesaid application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the case of the complainant was treated as a complaint case and the statement of the complainant was recorded on 09.03.2017 and the statement of his witnesses, namely, Ravi Prakash and Kokai Prasad were also recorded. Thereafter, the summoning order was issued on

04.12.2017.

5. Learned counsel submits that insofar as allegations made against the applicants under Section 420 I.P.C. are concerned, the same would not be applicable as the dispute is a commercial dispute between the parties, even the allegations in the complaint are taken at par. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the allegation under Section 406 I.P.C. is concerned, the same is also belated and there is no explanation offered by the complainant as the material goods, which were alleged in the complaint, had been taken in the year 2010. However, the first application to the police station was made on 20.11.2014 i.e. about four years after the transaction and as such, on account of the unexplained delay, the aforesaid proceeding of criminal breach of trust is not tenable under law. Insofar as the allegation under Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act is concerned, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the aforesaid proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of law and applicants have been falsely implicated. No such incident had taken place and the applicants have not uttered any caste based remark against the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer made in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by submitting that the caste based remarks have been made by the applicants in the public view and as such the present application is liable to be dismissed.

7. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have taken tent materials on rent from the complainant for the purpose of marriage and have given Rs. 100/- as advance. The remaining amount was required to be paid. However, aforesaid transaction took place on 17.06.2010 and the aforesaid tent materials were not returned complete in all respect and partially the same was retained and also the rent to the tune of Rs. 9,450/- was not paid. The first application to the police station was made on 20.11.2014 and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on

21.09.2015.

8. For examining the correctness or otherwise of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 420 I.P.C.

9. For ready reference, Section 420 of I.P.C. is extracted herein below: "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

10. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of initial transaction there was intention on the part of the applicants to misappropriate the goods supplied to them. If there is any dispute with regard to the payment of rent or return of the goods, the same is a commercial dispute, as such, the provision of Section 420 I.P.C. would not be applicable as there was no dishonest inducement to the complainant to deliver the goods. Initially, the goods were delivered as a commercial transaction to the extent that the parties have not disputed the same. So far as Section 406 I.P.C. is concerned, the same is criminal breach of trust. Although, the transaction is a commercial transaction, however the allegation arose in the year 2010. It is only in the year 2014 at the first time the allegations with regard to criminal breach of trust have been made by the complainant against the applicants. The non-return of the goods or non-payment of the rent by itself may not be foundation to criminal breach of trust. However, lodging of the criminal proceedings after five years as indicated above with regard to fact that the dispute was a commercial dispute between the parties. To that extent the proceedings under Section 406 I.P.C. is not tenable under law.

11. Insofar as the allegation under Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act is concerned, in the complaint as well as in the statement of complainant it has been specifically stated that the applicants have uttered caste based remark in the public view.

12. Although, the applicants have denied the aforesaid allegations, however this Court can not go into the disputed question of facts, if the allegations with regard to uttering of caste based remark are taken at par then the offence would be made out subject to the evidence that may be led during the course of trial before the trial court.

13. Accordingly, insofar as the prayer for quashing of proceedings under Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. is concerned, the same is rejected.

14. In view of the above, the summoning order to the extent of summoning the applicants under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. are concerned, the same are set aside. The criminal proceedings against the applicants shall continue only in respect of Section 3(1) (10) of S.C./S.T. Act.

15. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 SK Srivastava SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

approached the District Magistrate for lodging of the first information report. However, no action was taken. Thereafter on

20.04.2015, the concerned Station House Officer had given a letter to the complainant to appear before the Circle Officer, Kalwari on

22.04.2015. On 08.08.2015 also the S.H.O. concerned called the complainant, however, when the complainant was going through the market, then applicant no. 2 had uttered caste based remark and had abused at a public place.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of aforesaid application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the case of the complainant was treated as a complaint case and the statement of the complainant was recorded on 09.03.2017 and the statement of his witnesses, namely, Ravi Prakash and Kokai Prasad were also recorded. Thereafter, the summoning order was issued on

04.12.2017.

5. Learned counsel submits that insofar as allegations made against the applicants under Section 420 I.P.C. are concerned, the same would not be applicable as the dispute is a commercial dispute between the parties, even the allegations in the complaint are taken at par. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the allegation under Section 406 I.P.C. is concerned, the same is also belated and there is no explanation offered by the complainant as the material goods, which were alleged in the complaint, had been taken in the year 2010. However, the first application to the police station was made on 20.11.2014 i.e. about four years after the transaction and as such, on account of the unexplained delay, the aforesaid proceeding of criminal breach of trust is not tenable under law. Insofar as the allegation under Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act is concerned, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the aforesaid proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of law and applicants have been falsely implicated. No such incident had taken place and the applicants have not uttered any caste based remark against the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer made in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by submitting that the caste based remarks have been made by the applicants in the public view and as such the present application is liable to be dismissed.

7. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have taken tent materials on rent from the complainant for the purpose of marriage and have given Rs. 100/- as advance. The remaining amount was required to be paid. However, aforesaid transaction took place on 17.06.2010 and the aforesaid tent materials were not returned complete in all respect and partially the same was retained and also the rent to the tune of Rs. 9,450/- was not paid. The first application to the police station was made on 20.11.2014 and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on

21.09.2015.

8. For examining the correctness or otherwise of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 420 I.P.C.

9. For ready reference, Section 420 of I.P.C. is extracted herein below: "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

10. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of initial transaction there was intention on the part of the applicants to misappropriate the goods supplied to them. If there is any dispute with regard to the payment of rent or return of the goods, the same is a commercial dispute, as such, the provision of Section 420 I.P.C. would not be applicable as there was no dishonest inducement to the complainant to deliver the goods. Initially, the goods were delivered as a commercial transaction to the extent that the parties have not disputed the same. So far as Section 406 I.P.C. is concerned, the same is criminal breach of trust. Although, the transaction is a commercial transaction, however the allegation arose in the year 2010. It is only in the year 2014 at the first time the allegations with regard to criminal breach of trust have been made by the complainant against the applicants. The non-return of the goods or non-payment of the rent by itself may not be foundation to criminal breach of trust. However, lodging of the criminal proceedings after five years as indicated above with regard to fact that the dispute was a commercial dispute between the parties. To that extent the proceedings under Section 406 I.P.C. is not tenable under law.

11. Insofar as the allegation under Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act is concerned, in the complaint as well as in the statement of complainant it has been specifically stated that the applicants have uttered caste based remark in the public view.

12. Although, the applicants have denied the aforesaid allegations, however this Court can not go into the disputed question of facts, if the allegations with regard to uttering of caste based remark are taken at par then the offence would be made out subject to the evidence that may be led during the course of trial before the trial court.

13. Accordingly, insofar as the prayer for quashing of proceedings under Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. is concerned, the same is rejected.

14. In view of the above, the summoning order to the extent of summoning the applicants under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. are concerned, the same are set aside. The criminal proceedings against the applicants shall continue only in respect of Section 3(1) (10) of S.C./S.T. Act.

15. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 SK Srivastava SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad