HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45173 of 2023 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lorik Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. Counter affidavit dated 02.01.2024 of the State to which rejoinder affidavit dated 28.03.2024 are on record. Counter affidavit of the opposite party no.2 dated 04.04.2024 is also on record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not proposes to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of the opposite party no.2. The matter thus is ripe for hearing. The Court proceeds to hear the matter. 5. The present application under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Yogendra @ Yogendra Singh, with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 289 of 2023 (State Vs. Yogendra), U/s 406 IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahaswan, Budaun arising out of case crime No. 0196 of 2022, P.S.- Mujaria, District Badaun and to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 05.02.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 16.02.2023 and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the said case, during the pendency of the present application. 6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 24.10.2022 under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC by Somendra Singh the opposite party no.2 against Yogendra Singh Yadav (the present applicant), Jitendra Singh Yadav and Ramesh Chandra alleging therein that he is a farmer. In the year 2011, he purchased a Mahindra 475 Tractor on loan which was given by him on rent to Yogendra Singh and Jitendra Singh who were having a shop of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, G.A. Yogendra Alias Yogendra Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) construction material on oral understanding of rent of Rs. 500/- per day being Rs. 15,000/- per month. The accused assured him that money every month would be transferred in his bank account and took details of bank account for which he gave a cheque to them for reference of the bank but the accused misled him and stated of giving the rent next year and have cheated with him since 2011. They have neither given rent to him which accumulated around Rs. 15 lakh and neither have returned the tractor which is in illegal possession to them. They can even take away the tractor. They have threatened him that he will not get his tractor and the money and he cannot do anything with them. Report be lodged and action be taken. 7. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 15.12.2022 was forwarded by the Investigating Officer to the supervisory officer against Yogendra Singh for offence under Section 406 IPC whereas Jitendra Singh Yadav and Ramesh Chandra were not charge sheeted. Their names were mentioned in colomn 12 of the said charge sheet. The Circle Officer concerned not finding the investigation to be appropriate ordered further investigation with his comments that the investigation in so far as two proposed not charge sheeted accused is concerned, be done diligently and further he objected to the fact that the alleged tractor has not been recovered. The matter was then taken up for further investigation and the alleged tractor was recovered on 05.02.2023. As per CD No. 12 dated 05.05.2023 it was found to be parked near passenger shade near Mujaria crossing. The same was taken in possession by the police. Subsequently a charge sheet dated 06.02.2023 was filed against Yogendra Singh (the present applicant) under Section 406 IPC but again Jitendra Singh Yadav and Ramesh Chandra were exonerated and their names were mentioned in clolomn 12 of the said charge sheet. The court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sahaswan, Budaun vide order dated 16.02.2023 took cognizance upon the said charge sheet and summoned the applicant under Section 406 IPC. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has thus been filed before this Court with the aforesaid prayers. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is as under: (i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. (ii) The dispute if any is a purely civil dispute relating to non payment of money arising out of an oral contract entered into between the opposite party no.2 and the applicant and co-accused with regards to a tractor being given on rent. (iii) The recovery of the tractor is from an open place and not from the possession of the applicant and thus it cannot be said that the same was in possession of the applicant. (iv) The FIR states that the applicant and co-accused Jitendra Singh A482 No. 45173 of 2023 2 Yadav had taken tractor on rent from the informant but Jitendra Singh Yadav has been exonerated by the police. The role of the applicant and Jitendra Singh Yadav were common and omnibus. (v) There is a dispute with regards to the money between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 as the opposite party no.2 had borrowed Rs. 2 lakh from the applicant which was not being paid and thus due to the said reason, the present prosecution has been initiated, para 20 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. (vi) The alleged oral agreement and handing over of the tractor to the accused is in the year 2011 as per FIR but the present FIR has been lodged after about 11 years on 24.10.2022 and thus there is enormous delay in lodging of the FIR inasmuch as the first informant states that he has not been paid the amount of rent as agreed orally between the parties for the use of the tractor. The cognizance in the present matter has taken by the court concerned on 16.02.2023 on the charge sheet on which the applicant has been summoned, the same is barred by Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. which states that of an offence if punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. In the present matter, under Section 406 IPC the punishment extends upto three years or with fine or both. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Sarah Mathew Vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director– Dr. K.M. Cherian & others : 2014 (1) SCC 721. (vii) The dispute in the present matter is purely civil in nature as it stems out from an alleged oral contract entered between the parties with regards to the rent being paid for the use of tractor. (viii) The proceedings thus are abuse of process of Court and deserves to be quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the State and opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted as under: (i) The provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present matter as the FIR has been lodged on 24.10.2022 on which cognizance has been taken on 16.02.2023 which is within a period of four months and thus the cognizance is not barred as it is within the period of limitation from the date of information about the incident. (ii) The allegations against the applicant makes out an offence. (iii) The dispute between the parties is with regards to non payment of rent of money which was being utilized by the applicant since last 11 years. The present petition be thus dismissed. 10. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the A482 No. 45173 of 2023 3 records, it is evident that the present dispute relates to non payment of rent of a tractor by the accused applicant. The allegation against the applicant and co-accused Jitendra Singh are identical but still Jitendra Singh Yadav has been exonerated during investigation. The FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 11 years since the tractor was given in the year 2011 and it is alleged that since then the rent payable for its use by the accused was not paid but still the opposite party no.2 waited as long as for 11 years and lodged the FIR in the year 2022. Even further the dispute in the present matter is with regards to non payment of rent of the tractor and retaining the tractor for further use. The main grievance of the opposite party no.2 is regarding non payment of rent of the tractor, the same is mainly a civil dispute which does not in any manner show any criminality in it. The dispute of civil nature has been given the colour of a criminal case. The proceedings thus are abuse of process of Court. 11. In so far as the argument regarding Section 468 Cr.P.C. of the applicant is concerned, the same does not in any manner gets attracted in the present case in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Amritlal Vs. Shantilal Soni and others : SLP (Criminal) No. 5122 of 2029, decided on 28.02.2022 and Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301. 12. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings, charge sheet as well as cognizance/summoning order as prayed for by the applicant(s). 13. The present application is allowed. 14. The entire proceeding, impugned charge sheet dated 05.02.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 16.02.2023 of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. April 24, 2026 M. ARIF A482 No. 45173 of 2023 4 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad