SRI SURESH KUMAR GOYAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 236 · Decided: 11-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
SRI SURESH KUMAR GOYAL AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2019)
JANUARY 11, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 482 and 245(2) –
Jurisdiction u/s. 482 to quash the proceedings before the
commencement of actual trial – On facts, allegation that respondent
no.2 purchased shares in his name and appellant no. 2, and
appellants by forging signature of respondent no. 2, illegally
procured bonus shares and refused to hand over the original shares
in their possession – Criminal complaint by respondent no. 2 against
appellants alleging cheating – Dismissed by the Magistrate, however,
in Revision matter remanded back – Application u/s. 482 by
appellants – Disposed of, by the High Court – Thereafter, appellants
filing application u/s. 245(2) for discharge – Rejection of, by the
Magistrate holding that sufficient grounds to frame charges u/s.
420, 323 and 504 IPC made out – On appeal, held: Shares right
since the date of acquisition have always been in the custody of
appellant No.1 and the acquisition was from the funds of appellant
No.1 – Complainant merely alleged that the funds came from his
bank account but beyond such allegations no material placed on
record at any stage – Appellants’ stand in their application u/s.245(2)
quite clear that the shares can be sold in the market and the proceeds
can be divided between appellant No.2 and respondent No.2 –
Appellant no.1 had disowned respondent No.2 and had filed civil
proceedings seeking appropriate orders – Thus, the present criminal
complaint is an attempt to wreck vengeance against appellants –
Criminal complaint is an abuse of the process of court and is to be
quashed – Orders passed by the courts below set aside and
application for discharge u/s.245(2) allowed – Respondent No.2 to
pay Rs.25,000/- to each appellant by way of costs for initiating
frivolous litigation – Costs.
Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330
– referred to.
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 236
236
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
237
Case Law Reference
(2013) 3 SCC 330
referred to
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 56 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Application U/s. 482 No. 22324 of 2011.
Venkita Subramoniam T.R,  Raghvendra Srivastava, Rahat Bansal,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Tribindh Kumar, Subodh Jha, Amlan Kumar Ghosh, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted. This appeal
challenges the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad dismissing application preferred by the appellants
under Section 482 CrPC being Application No.22324 of 2011.
2. Respondent No.2 filed Complaint No.3804 of 2009 in the Court
of 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 02.12.2009
against Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 namely his father, brother and brother-
in-law.  The main allegations as set out in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 of
the Complaint were as under:-
“3.  THAT Complainant had purchased 2 folios consisting of 100
shares of Reliance Industry.  1st folio was in the name of the
Complainant and accused no.2 and 2nd folio was in the joint names
of accused no.2 and complainant.  The address in these shares is
House no. KC-102/2, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad.  Thereafter Reliance
company sent to complainant 100 shares in the year 1997 and 200
shares of their company in this year itself.
4. THAT all the accused in furtherance of their conspiracy beat
the Complainant and threw him out of the house along with his
children in the year 1998 for mala fide reasons.  They also forged
signatures of complainant in the years 1997 and 2006 and illegally
procured bonus shares and when complainant demanded back
his original shares and bonus shares from them, they misbehaved
with the complainant and refused to disclose anything to him.  The
SRI SURESH KUMAR GOYAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
complainant is presently living in Chiranjiv Vihar with his children
for the sake of lives of himself and his children and also to maintain
peace in the family.
5. THAT Folio number of the shares is 068119227 and complainant
is not aware of the number of 2nd folio and he will provide it later
on whenever he comes to know of it.  Because all the shares are
in the custody of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.