Saurabh Mishra v. State of U.P. and another

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material on record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of Charge-sheet No.294/2015 dated 12.09.2015 and entire proceedings of Case No.5149/2015 (State Vs. Mool Chandra Misra and another), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, arising out of Case Crime No.0139/2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 332 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant and his father were registered civil contractors in the Police Department. Opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR alleging that at the time of renewal of contractor registration, the applicant submitted an affidavit showing his age as -2- A482 No. - 2234 of 2016 19 years, though he was allegedly a minor, and thereby committed cheating in obtaining departmental registration.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to personal vengeance, the opposite party no.2 registered a criminal case in the relevant sections of Indian Penal Code. Opposite party no.2, who lodged the impugned FIR against the applicant, was got arrested red handed while taking bribe for which a case was registered as FIR/Case Crime No.142/2001 at Police Station- Cantt, Lucknow under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. In the year 2014 another case was registered against the opposite party no.2 vide Case crime No.8/2014, under Sections 406/409 I.P.C., P.S. Jogia, District- Siddharth Nagar. It is further submitted that against the conduct of opposite party no.2, applicant's father has preferred many representations to higher authorities but no action was taken against the opposite party No 2. In this regard, the applicant's father also submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, Barabanki on 25.02.2015. It is an admitted case of prosecution that the applicant was a minor at the time of registration and his registration was done by his father. Applicant was a minor at the alleged time of offence and the act committed by his guardian cannot be attributed to him, and in order to settle score with the applicant and his father, the opposite party no.2 as a counter blast, lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the applicant and his father.

5. It is further submitted that at the time of renewal, the applicant submitted an affidavit but due to typographical error his age was typed as 19 years instead of 16 years. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant U/s 420 IPC, which is not attracted against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the basic essentials of Section 420 I.P.C. are not satisfied and also the opposite party no.2 has not mentioned the alleged wrongful loss caused to him by the applicant. The opposite party no.2 nowhere mentioned the authority under which he had lodged the FIR against the applicant and his father. -3- A482 No. - 2234 of 2016

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per Section 39 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2 has no authority under law to file the complaint as he is not aggrieved person. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court passed in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2019: AHC :89213.

7. On the other hand, leamed A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and supported the charge levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that learned court below has duly applied his judicial mind while taking cognizance under various sections of Indian Penal Code and took cognizance against the applicant under Section 406 I.P.C. only on the basis of the documents available on record. Hence, the application filed by the applicant may be dismissed.

8. Having considered the submissions and perusing the record, it is evident that at the time of execution of contract the applicant was minor and thus was incapable to entering into a valid contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and such a contract made on behalf of applicant is null and void and unenforceable in law. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is narrow but well-settled. The Court may quash proceedings where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Section 420 IPC requires: (i) deception of any person; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement; (iii) delivery of property or causing wrongful loss; and (iv) mens rea at the inception. According to Aadhar Card, copy of which is annexed at Page 58, the applicant appears to be minor at the relevant point of time. Once the concerned Police Department has declared the said contract cancelled on account of the applicant's minority, the criminal proceedings against him for the same transaction would be wholly unjustified and amounts to misuse the -4- A482 No. - 2234 of 2016 criminal process. The essential ingredients of mens-rea is also continuously absent as enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariam Fashihuddin & Anr. Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2024). Relevant para no.11 is reproduced hereinunder. "11. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made."

9. In view of the above discussion and considering that no benefit was ever derived by the applicant and he was a minor at the relevant time, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the applicant would serve no useful purpose and would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

10. Accordingly, the Charge-sheet No.294/2015 dated 12.09.2015 and entire proceedings of Case No.5149/2015 (State Vs. Mool Chandra Misra and another), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, arising out of Case Crime No.0139/2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 332 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, so far as it relates to applicant, namely, Saurabh Misra is concerned, the same are hereby quashed. The application stands allowed.

11. It is clarified that this order shall not affect the proceedings, if any, continuing against the applicant's father. November 28, 2025 Anand (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material on record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of Charge-sheet No.294/2015 dated 12.09.2015 and entire proceedings of Case No.5149/2015 (State Vs. Mool Chandra Misra and another), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, arising out of Case Crime No.0139/2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 332 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant and his father were registered civil contractors in the Police Department. Opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR alleging that at the time of renewal of contractor registration, the applicant submitted an affidavit showing his age as -2- A482 No. - 2234 of 2016 19 years, though he was allegedly a minor, and thereby committed cheating in obtaining departmental registration.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to personal vengeance, the opposite party no.2 registered a criminal case in the relevant sections of Indian Penal Code. Opposite party no.2, who lodged the impugned FIR against the applicant, was got arrested red handed while taking bribe for which a case was registered as FIR/Case Crime No.142/2001 at Police Station- Cantt, Lucknow under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. In the year 2014 another case was registered against the opposite party no.2 vide Case crime No.8/2014, under Sections 406/409 I.P.C., P.S. Jogia, District- Siddharth Nagar. It is further submitted that against the conduct of opposite party no.2, applicant's father has preferred many representations to higher authorities but no action was taken against the opposite party No 2. In this regard, the applicant's father also submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, Barabanki on 25.02.2015. It is an admitted case of prosecution that the applicant was a minor at the time of registration and his registration was done by his father. Applicant was a minor at the alleged time of offence and the act committed by his guardian cannot be attributed to him, and in order to settle score with the applicant and his father, the opposite party no.2 as a counter blast, lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the applicant and his father.

5. It is further submitted that at the time of renewal, the applicant submitted an affidavit but due to typographical error his age was typed as 19 years instead of 16 years. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant U/s 420 IPC, which is not attracted against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the basic essentials of Section 420 I.P.C. are not satisfied and also the opposite party no.2 has not mentioned the alleged wrongful loss caused to him by the applicant. The opposite party no.2 nowhere mentioned the authority under which he had lodged the FIR against the applicant and his father. -3- A482 No. - 2234 of 2016

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per Section 39 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2 has no authority under law to file the complaint as he is not aggrieved person. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court passed in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2019: AHC :89213.

7. On the other hand, leamed A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and supported the charge levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that learned court below has duly applied his judicial mind while taking cognizance under various sections of Indian Penal Code and took cognizance against the applicant under Section 406 I.P.C. only on the basis of the documents available on record. Hence, the application filed by the applicant may be dismissed.

8. Having considered the submissions and perusing the record, it is evident that at the time of execution of contract the applicant was minor and thus was incapable to entering into a valid contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and such a contract made on behalf of applicant is null and void and unenforceable in law. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is narrow but well-settled. The Court may quash proceedings where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Section 420 IPC requires: (i) deception of any person; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement; (iii) delivery of property or causing wrongful loss; and (iv) mens rea at the inception. According to Aadhar Card, copy of which is annexed at Page 58, the applicant appears to be minor at the relevant point of time. Once the concerned Police Department has declared the said contract cancelled on account of the applicant's minority, the criminal proceedings against him for the same transaction would be wholly unjustified and amounts to misuse the -4- A482 No. - 2234 of 2016 criminal process. The essential ingredients of mens-rea is also continuously absent as enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariam Fashihuddin & Anr. Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2024). Relevant para no.11 is reproduced hereinunder. "11. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made."

9. In view of the above discussion and considering that no benefit was ever derived by the applicant and he was a minor at the relevant time, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the applicant would serve no useful purpose and would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

10. Accordingly, the Charge-sheet No.294/2015 dated 12.09.2015 and entire proceedings of Case No.5149/2015 (State Vs. Mool Chandra Misra and another), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, arising out of Case Crime No.0139/2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 332 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, so far as it relates to applicant, namely, Saurabh Misra is concerned, the same are hereby quashed. The application stands allowed.

11. It is clarified that this order shall not affect the proceedings, if any, continuing against the applicant's father. November 28, 2025 Anand (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench