Allahabad High Court

YOGENDRA ALIAS YOGENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 23 April 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the dispute is civil, the delay is unreasonable, and proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

Summary

The applicant Yogendra Singh filed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 289 of 2023) arising from an FIR lodged on 24-10-2022 alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in relation to a tractor rented in 2011. The charge sheet under Section 406 IPC named only Yogendra, while co‑accused were exonerated, and the tractor was recovered after further investigation. The applicant contended that the dispute was purely civil – a matter of unpaid rent and recovery of the tractor – and that the 11‑year delay in filing the FIR barred criminal prosecution under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The State argued that the limitation did not apply and that the allegations constituted an offence. The High Court held that the matter was indeed a civil dispute, the delay was unreasonable, and proceeding criminally would be an abuse of process, relying on Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order, and all related proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 406 IPC should be quashed as the dispute is civil in nature.
Whether the 11‑year delay in lodging the FIR bars the prosecution under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 468, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 506

Subjects

Section 482 Cr.P.C.
quash of criminal proceedings
civil dispute
abuse of process
limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
tractor rent dispute
criminal breach of trust

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45173 of 2023

Yogendra Alias Yogendra Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bharat Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, G.A.

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
A482 No. 45173 of 2023
2

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
3

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
4

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.

(Samit Gopal,J.)
April 24, 2026
M. ARIF

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…