Allahabad High Court
SUDHIR KUMAR CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The dispute does not constitute a criminal offence and the lower courts' classification as a civil matter is upheld.
Summary
The petitioner alleged that he transferred Rs. 61,75,000 to the respondent's rice mill based on false representations and sought criminal investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Civil Judge dismissed the application, deeming the dispute civil, and the Sessions Judge affirmed that view on revision. The petitioner argued the matter involved cheating and should be treated as criminal, emphasizing the banking evidence of the transfer. The High Court noted a ten‑year delay in filing the application and observed that the grievance pertained merely to profit‑sharing in a business arrangement, which does not constitute a criminal offence. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' reasoning and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the dispute over alleged fraud and non‑payment of profit share amounts to a criminal offence under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
- Whether the ten‑year delay bars the initiation of criminal proceedings.
- Whether the lower courts erred in classifying the matter as a civil dispute.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- limitation period
- civil vs criminal dispute
- fraud
- cheating
- profit sharing
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12486 of 2023
Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satyendra Narayan Singh, Shiv Ram
Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA
for the State are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside
the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal
Revision No. 182 of 2022 (Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and
Another) as well as the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Fast Track, Basti passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No.24835 of 2021 (Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Jitendra Jaiswal alias
Bablu) under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner came into
contact with the respondent prior to the incident. The respondent represented
that his father owned a rice mill and that its business operations were being
managed by him. It is further submitted that the respondent informed the
petitioner that the financial condition of the said mill was not sound and
sought financial assistance. Relying upon such representations and reposing
trust in the respondent, the petitioner transferred a sum of Rs. 61,75,000/- to
the bank account of the rice mill. It is further submitted that the respondent
assured the petitioner that he would be given half share in the profits of the
business. However, neither the principal amount nor any share in the profits
was ever returned to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), F.T.C., Basti, which was dismissed vide order dated
09.11.2022 on the ground that the dispute between the parties appeared to be
of a civil nature.
4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.
A227 No. 12486 of 2023
2
182 of 2022 (Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and Another),
which was also dismissed, affirming the findings recorded by the trial court.
Learned counsel submits that the entire amount was transferred through
banking channels and the relevant documents were placed on record along
with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., thereby establishing the
payment. It is further submitted that the petitioner was deceived by the
respondent, who falsely represented that the rice mill belonged to his father,
whereas it was later discovered that neither the respondent nor his father had
any ownership over the said mill. It is contended that the conduct of the
respondent clearly indicates a dishonest intention to cheat the petitioner from
the very inception, and therefore, the matter involves criminality and cannot
be treated as a mere civil dispute. It is thus argued that both the courts below
have erred in treating the dispute as purely civil in nature.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is
pertinent to note that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed
after a delay of about ten years from the alleged incident. Although, if the
allegations are taken at their face value, the bar of limitation under criminal
law may not strictly apply, such inordinate delay is a relevant factor while
considering the credibility of the allegations. Further, a bald criminal
complaint, unsupported by any substantive material to corroborate the
allegations, cannot be entertained as a matter of course. From the averments
made, it prima facie appears that the dispute between the parties arose when
the respondent allegedly failed to share the profits of the rice mill business.
Such a dispute, relating to sharing of profits arising out of a business
arrangement, does not by itself constitute a criminal offence. Accordingly,
the reasoning recorded by both the courts below does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity and is hereby upheld.
6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
April 23, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…