Assignment – 1

1. Research on Sec on 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and figure out the iden cal

sec on as given under BNSS:

Please begin by conduc ng an in-depth research on Sec on 482 of the CrPC. This sec on deals

with the “Power of High Court to quash proceedings” and provides the High Court the

discre on to quash criminal proceedings in cases where it believes that the proceedings are

vexa ous, an abuse of process of law, or that the accused should not face the trial for the

offence.

A er comple ng your research, please provide a short analysis summarizing its scope,

applica ons, and limita ons.

2. Review of Applica on under Sec on 482 – Alok Garg Vs State of U.P & Another:

A ached to this document star ng from page no. 3 , you will find a copy of the applica on in

the case of Alok Garg Vs State of U.P & Another. Kindly go through the en re applica on

carefully.

Once you have reviewed it, prepare a brief summary of the facts of the case that you believe

are most relevant and will be useful for the arguing counsel during the legal arguments. Focus

on highligh ng those points that may carry the most weight in the applica on of Sec on 482

of the CrPC.

3. Research Relevant Case Laws on Sec on 406 of IPC:

In addi on to Sec on 482 of the CrPC, please also focus on Sec on 406 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, which deals with Criminal breach of trust. Specifically, we need you to research

and cri cally analyze the following:

o Case laws where FIRs were not registered under Sec on 406 IPC due to the nature of

the dispute being civil in nature.

o Understand the judicial reasoning behind decisions where Sec on 406 was not

applicable in civil disputes.

 o Perform a cri cal analysis of the sec on, its scope, and judicial interpreta on. You can

refer to landmark case laws to highlight the dis nc on between civil and criminal

breach of trust.

4. Final Report Prepara on:

A er comple ng the research and analysis, prepare a comprehensive report on the task. This

report should include:

o A short analysis of Sec on 482 of CrPC.

o A brief of facts of the case (Alok Garg Vs State of U.P) that is concise yet relevant for

legal arguments.

o A cri cal analysis of Sec on 406 of IPC in the context of civil disputes and the non-

applicability of the sec on in such cases.

Submission Details:

 The final report should be prepared in a Word Document or PDF format.

 Kindly submit the completed report to me by 26th November, 2024.

 Your next task will be assigned on 27th November, 2024.

 All Assignment shall be submi ed through an email internship24.aja@gmail.com and during

submissions the subject of email shall contain the intern id followed by assignment number

(e.g. N1/2024 Assignment-1)

The Copy of Applica on Under Sec on 482- Alok Garg Vs State of U.P & Another has been annexed

herewith this document from Page no. 3 to 19.

This is Copy of actual case which is sub-judice under Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, so

it is been expected from you to give a detailed reading to the applica on and complete your

assignment accordingly.

If you have any ques ons or need further clarifica on at any point during the research, please feel

free to reach out. We expect thorough and detailed work for this task as it will form the basis for your

next assignments.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
******
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
In
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. _OF 2024
(Under Sec on 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)
(DISTRICT – MATHURA)

Alok Kumar Garg and Another … … … Applicants

Versus

State of UP and Another … … … Opposite Par es

Sl. DATES PARTICULARS

No.
1. 23.05.2012 The applicants are the partners of M/s.
Jagannath Construction and entered into a
contract with the Mathura-Vrindavan
Development Authority, Mathura to
construct 656 numbers of 1 BHK Houses
(four storey) at Rukmani Vihar Vrindavan
and during the course of the construction,
some dispute arise between the applicants
and the opposite party No.2 with regard to
completion of work in the year 2016.

2. --- The applicants have already handed over the

project to the Mathura-Vrindavan
Development Authority, Mathura and inlieu
of the same, the MVDA have allotted the
same to the allottees but the MVDA did not
pay the remaining amount as well as the
security amount which has beendeposited at
the time of execution of thecontract.

3. 15.11.2017 The opposite party No.2 lodged an FIR

against the Firm M/s. Jagannath
Construction as well as its contractors
bearing case crime No.1140 of 2017 under
Section 406 IPC at Police Station
 Vrindavan, District Mathura with the
allegation that the contractor is delaying in
repairing of the constructed flats,
consequently, the MVDA could not able to
allot 1 BHK flat to the allottees.

4. 01.10.2019 The dispute arose between the parties tothe

agreement with regard to non-payment of
the amount which is due against the MVDA
so the applicants have no option except to
approach this Hon'ble Court by means of
filing ARCO No.75 of 2019 and this Hon'ble
Court passed an order and referred the
matter before the sole Arbitrary and finally,
Hon’ble Retd. Justice SushilHarkauli as a sole
Arbitrator in the present matter.

5. 25.10.2021 The sole Arbitrator found entitled to refund

of the security amount of Rs.1,38,58,557/-
deducted from the running bills. Under Claim
No.4, out of the said amount also the claimant
will be entitled to interest at the rate of 14%
per annum of the amount of cash deposit and
7% on the FDR amount per annum with
effect from 15.06.2016.

6. 13.02.2024 Against the award dated 25.10.2021, the

MVDA, Mathura has filed their objection
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 before the
Commercial Court, Agra and the learned
Court after hearing both the parties atlength
have rejected the objection filed by the
MVDA, Mathura.

7. 24.04.2024 Against the order dated 13.02.2024 passed

by the Commercial Court, Agra, the opposite
party No.2 preferred the
 Arbitration Appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
after hearing both the parties, the appealwas
also dismissed by this Hon'ble Court.

8. 25.03.2018 After completion of the investigation, the

charge sheet has been submitted by the
Investigating Officer against the applicants
as well as another partner Abhi Agrawal
under Section 406 IPC and the same
forwarded to the concerned Court for taking
cognizance against the applicants and Abhi
Agrawal.

9. 13.02.2019 The learned Court below has registered a

Case No.195 of 2019 (State Vs. Yogesh
Kumar Garg and Another) and taken
cognizance of the alleged offence and
summoning the applicants under Section
406 IPC.

10. --- It is submitted that the defence of the

applicant is that he has been falsely
implicated into the matter for the purpose
of causing harassment and humiliation to
them and the motive behind the same is to
satisfy personal grudge and enmity which
the opposite party No.2 is having with him.

Hence the present criminal misc.

application.

(AKLANK KUMAR JAIN)

Advocate
Counsel for the Applicants
Adv. Roll No.A/A2154/2013
Chamber No.127
Dt/- / /2024 High Court, Allahabad
 Proceedings against the impugned
summoning order dated 13.02.2019
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mathura in Case No.195 of 2019 (State Vs.
Yogesh Kumar Garg and Another) under
Sec on 406 IPC, Police Sta on Vrindavan,
District Mathura including charge sheet
dated25.03.2018 arising out of case crime
No.1140 of 2017, Police Sta on Vrindavan,
District Mathura pending in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

******
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. _OF 2024
(Under Sec on 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)
(DISTRICT – MATHURA)

1. Alok Kumar Garg son of Sri J.P. Garg, Resident of II-A, 91

Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad, partner of M/s. Jagnnath
Construction.
2. Yogesh Kumar Garg son of Sri P.S. Garg, Resident of 5,
Gandhi Nagar, Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, partner of M/s.
Jagnnath Construction.
… … … Applicants

Versus

1. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home

Department, U.P. Government, Lucknow.

2. Anil Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Mathura-Vrindavan

Development Authority, Mathura.

… … … Opposite Parties

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other companion

judges of the aforesaid Court.
 The humble application on behalf of the applicants
above named most respectfully showeth as under.

1. That the full facts and circumstances of the case have been
mentioned in the accompanying affidavit.

2. That in view of the fact and circumstances of the case it is

expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to allow the present criminal
misc. application and quash the impugned summoning
order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mathura in Case No.195 of 2019 (State Vs.
Yogesh Kumar Garg and Another) under Section 406 IPC,
Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura including
charge sheet dated 25.03.2018 arising out of case crime
No.1140 of 2017, Police Station Vrindavan, District
Mathura, otherwise, the applicants shall suffer irreparable
loss and hardship which may not be compensated by any
other means.

It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

graciously be also pleased to allow the present criminal
misc. application and all further proceedings of Case
No.195 of 2019 (State Vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg and Another)
under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Vrindavan, District
Mathura arising out of case crime No.1140 of 2017, Police
Station Vrindavan, District Mathura pending in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura may also be stayed
during the pendency of the present criminal misc.
application.
 PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to allow the presentcriminal
misc. application and quash the impugned summoning order
dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mathura as well as entire proceedings of Case No.195 of 2019
(State Vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg and Another) under Section 406
IPC, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura including
charge sheet dated 25.03.2018 arising out of case crime
No.1140 of 2017, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura,
otherwise, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and
hardship which may not be compensated by any other means.

It is further prayed that all further proceedings of Case

No.195 of 2019 (State Vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg and Another)
under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Vrindavan, District
Mathura arising out of case crime No.1140 of 2017, Police
Station Vrindavan, District Mathura pending in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura may also be stayed during
the pendency of the present criminal misc. application and/or
pass such other and further order which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

(AKLANK KUMAR JAIN)

Advocate
Counsel for the Applicants
Adv. Roll No.A/A2154/2013
Chamber No.127
Dt/- / /2024 High Court, Allahabad
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
******
AFFIDAVIT
In

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. _OF 2024

(Under Sec on 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)

(DISTRICT – MATHURA)

1. Alok Kumar Garg son of Sri J.P. Garg, Resident of II-A, 91

Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad, partner of M/s. Jagnnath
Construction.
2. Yogesh Kumar Garg son of Sri P.S. Garg, Resident of 5,
Gandhi Nagar, Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, partner of M/s.
Jagnnath Construction.
… … … Applicants

Versus

1. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home

Department, U.P. Government, Lucknow.

2. Anil Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Mathura-Vrindavan

Development Authority, Mathura.

… … … Opposite Parties

Affidavit of Alok Kumar Garg, aged

about 62 years, son of Jagdish
Prasad Garg, Resident of XYZ place
Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh-2013XX1.

Religion-Hindu,
Occupation-Business
(Deponent)

I, the Deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm

and state on oath as under.
1. That the deponent is the applicant No.1 in the above
mentioned criminal misc. application and is doingpairvi
of the case also on behalf of the applicant No.2 and, as
such, he is well acquainted with the facts of the case
deposed to below.

2. That the documents which have been annexed to the

present application are the only clear copies having been
obtained from the Court below and there are no other clear
copies of the same to be brought on record

3. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention

of Corruption Act/ED/matters relating to NRHM
Scam/GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA, etc.

4. That this is the first criminal misc. application filed by

the applicant invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the
relief prayed and no other criminal misc. application
has ever been filed by the applicant in respect of the
present cause of action before this Hon’ble Court.

5. That by means of the present criminal misc. application,

the applicants are challenging the legality and validity of
the impugned summoning order dated 13.02.2019
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Case
No.195 of 2019 (State Vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg and
Another) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station
Vrindavan, District Mathura including charge sheet
dated 25.03.2018 arising out of case crime No.1140 of
2017, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura.
6. That the applicants are the partners of M/s. Jagannath
Construction and entered into a contract with the
Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura
on 23.05.2012 to construct 656 numbers of 1 BHK
Houses (four storey) at Rukmani Vihar Vrindavan and
during the course of the construction, some dispute arise
between the applicants and the opposite party No.2 with
regard to completion of work in the year 2016 as well as
delay in payment which was due to the opposite party
No.2.

7. That the applicants have already handed over the

project to the Mathura-Vrindavan Development
Authority, Mathura (for short “the MVDA”) and in lieu of
the same, the MVDA have allotted the same to the
allottees but the MVDA did not pay the remaining
amount as well as the security amount which has been
deposited at the time of execution of the contract.

8. That the opposite party No.2 lodged an FIR against the

Firm M/s. Jagannath Construction as well as its
contractors bearing case crime No.1140 of 2017 under
Section 406 IPC at Police Station Vrindavan, District
Mathura on 15.11.2017 with the allegation that the
contractor is delaying in repairing of the constructed
flats, consequently, the MVDA could not able to allot 1
BHK flat to the allottees. A true copy of the First
Information Report dated 15.11.2017 is being filed
herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.

9. That it is relevant to mention here that the dispute arose

between the parties to the agreement with regard
 to non-payment of the amount which is due against the
MVDA so the applicants have no option except to
approach this Hon'ble Court by means of filing ARCO
No.75 of 2019 and this Hon'ble Court passed an order
and referred the matter before the sole Arbitrary vide
order dated 01.10.2019 and finally, Hon’ble Retd. Justice
Sushil Harkauli as a sole Arbitrator in the present
matter. A true copy of the order dated 01.10.2019
passed by this Hon'ble Court is being filed herewith and
marked as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit.

10. That in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Courtdated

01.10.2019, the applicants have submitted their claim
before the sole Arbitrator and the opposite party No.2
have also appeared and filed its detailed reply,finally the
sole Arbitrator has given an award in favour of Firm M/s.
Jagannath Construction and found that the Firm will be
entitled to pay an amount of Rs.87,40,513/- against
claim No.1 along with interest at the rate of 14% per
annum with effect from the date of completion i.e.
15.06.2016 till the date of making this award under
claim No.2 the interest payablethereafter till the date of
payment will be at the rate prescribed in Section
31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

11. That as per the award dated 25.10.2021, the sole Arbitrator
also found entitled to refund of the security amount of
Rs.1,38,58,557/- deducted from the running bills. Under
Claim No.4, out of the said amount also the claimant will be
entitled to interest at the rate of 14% per annum of the
amount of cash deposit and 7% on
 the FDR amount per annum with effect from 15.06.2016.
A true copy of the final award dated 25.10.2021 passed
by the sole Arbitrator is being filed herewith and marked
as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit.

12. That it is relevant to mention here that against the award

dated 25.10.2021, the MVDA, Mathura has filed their
objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court,
Agra and the learned Court after hearing both the parties
at length have rejected the objection filed by theMVDA,
Mathura vide order dated 13.02.2024. A truecopy of the
judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the
Commercial Court, Agra rejecting the objection filed by
the MVDA, Mathura is being filed herewith and marked
as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit.

13. That against the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the

Commercial Court, Agra, the opposite party No.2
preferred the Arbitration Appeal under Section 37 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and after
hearing both the parties, the appeal was also dismissed
by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 24.04.2024.
A true copy of the judgment and order dated 24.04.2024
passed by this Hon'ble Court is being filed herewith and
marked as Annexure No.5 to this affidavit.

14. That from the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the opposite
party No.2 has lodged the First Information Reportagainst
the applicants with malicious intention so that
 the opposite party No.2 may take benefit in the litigation
but from the aforementioned orders passed by the various
Courts, it is clear that the applicants were not on fault and
the applicants have not committed any breach of trust to
the opposite party No.2.

15. That in pursuance of the First Information Report, the

Investigating Officer have investigated the matter and
have recorded the statement of the informant under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which, he has reiterated the facts
which has already been mentioned in the First
Information Report. A true copy of the statement of the
informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being filed
herewith and marked as Annexure No.6 to this affidavit.

16. That after completion of the investigation, the charge

sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer
against the applicants as well as another partner Abhi
Agrawal under Section 406 IPC and the same forwarded
to the concerned Court for taking cognizance against the
applicants and Abhi Agrawal. A certified/true copy of the
charge sheet dated 25.03.2018 is being filed herewith
and marked as Annexure No.7 to this affidavit.

17. That the learned Court below has registered a Case

No.195 of 2019 (State Vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg and
Another) and taken cognizance of the alleged offence
and summoning the applicants under Section 406 IPC
in respect thereof by means of passing an impugned
order dated 13.02.2019. A true copy of the impugned
order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial
 Magistrate, Mathura is being filed herewith and marked
as Annexure No.8 to this affidavit.

18. That the defence of the applicant is that he has been

falsely implicated into the matter for the purpose of
causing harassment and humiliation to them and the
motive behind the same is to satisfy personal grudge and
enmity which the opposite party No.2 is having with
him.

19. That it is relevant to mention here that there is no

allegation against the applicants with regard to dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that property
or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation
of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express
or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of
such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do,
commits “criminal breach of trust”.

20. That it is the settled law, in case the breach of contract

between the parties, the First Information Report is not
maintainable under Section 406 IPC by any of the
parties.

21. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicants

were not aware about the summoning order dated
13.02.2019 first time, they came to know about the same
on 24.04.2024 during the argument by the learned
counsel for the applicants who have appeared for the
opposite party No.2, then the applicants have no
 option except to trace the same before the Court
concerned.

22. That thereafter, the applicants have applied for certified

copies of the First Information Report, charge sheet aswell
as certified copy of the complete order sheet. After
perusing the certified copy of the order sheet, it is clearly
reflected that the summons have not been served upon
the applicants till date and the case is stillat the stage of
service of summons.

23. That the impugned order dated 13.02.2019 passed by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura is arbitrary,
unsustainable and without application of judicial mind
and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside by this
Hon'ble Court in exercise of the power conferred by
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

24. That the impugned criminal proceeding has been

deliberately and maliciously instituted with an intention
to harass and humiliate the applicant and the motive
behind the same is to satisfy personal grudge and enmity
which the opposite party No.2 is having with the
applicant.

25. That the summoning order has been passed in a routine

and mechanical manner, inasmuch as, neither any
prima-facie satisfaction has been recorded whiletaking
cognizance of the alleged offence and directing for
issuance of summons against the applicant nor the
alleged evidence collected against the applicant which
has been adverted to by the learned Court below and
 thus, the impugned criminal proceedings stand
unsustainable in law.

26. That there is a dispute between the parties is of civil nature

and launching of the criminal proceedings is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and, as such, the same may
be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.

27. That the Investigating Officer has committed a mistake

in submitting the impugned charge sheet against the
applicant and similarly, the learned Magistrate has
passed the impugned order of taking cognizance without
application of mind as in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the dispute is of civil nature and no criminal
offence whatsoever is made out.

28. That since the impugned criminal proceeding is manifestly

attained with malafide, the same is liable to be quashed
on the strength of the law enunciated in the case of State
of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992
Supp. (1) SCC 335 so as to prevent abuse of the process
of the Court and to meetthe ends of justice, in as much
as, the prosecutionstory has been deliberately cooked up
so as to satisfy personal vengeance.

29. That the applicant has no criminal antecedent as well as

he is not previously convicted person.

30. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it

is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present
criminal misc. application and quash the impugned
summoning order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mathura as well as entire
proceedings of Case No.195 of 2019 (State Vs. Yogesh
Kumar Garg and Another) under Section 406 IPC, Police
Station Vrindavan, District Mathura including charge
sheet dated 25.03.2018 arising out of case crime
No.1140 of 2017, Police Station Vrindavan, District
Mathura and all further proceedings of Case No.195 of
2019 (State Vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg and Another) under
Section 406 IPC, Police Station Vrindavan, District
Mathura arising out of case crime No.1140 of 2017,
Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura pending in
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura may also
be stayed during the pendency of the present criminal
misc. application and/or pass such other and further
order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case.

I the deponent named above do hereby swear, affirm and

verify that the contents of the para nos. … … … …
………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … of this affidavit
are true to my personal knowledge, and those of para
nos. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
………………………………………………………
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … are based
on record that those para nos. … … … … … … … … …
………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … are
based on legal advice that those of paragraph nos. … …
………………………………………………………
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … are based
on information which all I believe to be true that nothing
material has been concealed and no part of it is false.

So help me God.

Deponent

I, Aklank Kumar Jain, Advocate, High Court,

Allahabad do hereby declare that the person makingthis
affidavit is the same person who is known to me from
the perusal of the papers produced before me by him.

Advocate

Solemnly affirmed before me this ............................ day

of … … … … 2024 at about … … … a.m./p.m. by the
deponent identified by the said Advocate.

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that

he has understood the contents of the affidavit, which have
been read over by the deponent explainedto him by me.
OATH COMMISSIONER