AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To what extent the "process of law" could be 'abused' that the criminal proceedings exfacie became vexatious and oppressive and facts of the present case are glaring example of it. It is a legal battle among advocates of a good standing at District Court, Kanpur. Both the applicant/accused as well as opposite party No.2/complainant are advocates. The facts further unfolds that the Lawyers' Association, Kanpur Nagar through its Secretary filed a civil suit bearing No. RS/000/712/216 against some advocates and private persons including one Smt. Renu Nigam to declare an agreement to sale dtd. 26/3/2008 being void ab initio on the ground being fraud. The said suit is still pending. The applicant No.1 was an advocate for the Association, however, on being certain dispute, he was later on discharged. An F.I.R. was lodged by one advocate on somewhat similar facts wherein opposite party No.2/complainant herein was also an accused. The further proceedings thereof are not on record.

(2.) Further facts are that the opposite party No.2 posted a letter dtd. 5/9/2019 by a speed post addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar that his neighbour one Renu Nigam in connivance with other persons has filed certain documents in the above referred suit, therefore, inquiry be conducted and criminal action be taken against her. No further proceedings on the said application are placed on record except Renu Nigam submitted duly sworn affidavit dtd. 10/12/2019 addressed to the A.D.G., Kanpur that the applicant No.1 herein had committed forgery and submitted documents in the above referred suit without her consent. Similarly Renu Nigam also filed an affidavit somewhat on similar averments/allegations duly sworn on 24/2/2021 in the civil suit. There is nothing on record how the opposite party No.2 got possession of the said affidavit submitted before A.D.G., Kanpur and on basis of said affidavit, the present F.I.R. dtd. 30/12/2020 was lodged against applicant No.1 and Renu Nigam for committing offence under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. alleging that the applicant No.1 and Renu Nigam hatched conspiracy and prepared forged document in order to grab the property in question.

(3.) The allegations made by Renu Nigam which are relied upon by the complainant/opposite party No.2 are still subject matter of the suit and only on basis of said document, the F.I.R. was lodged. The police machinery investigated the case and came to a conclusion that a case was made out against applicant No.1 for committing offence under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 384 I.P.C., and no evidence was found against Renu Nigam and therefore she was exonerated. However, the allegations were found to be true against one other advocate (applicant No.2) for committing the said offences, accordingly, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken.