Sri Krishna Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5798 of 2025
Sri Krishna Agrawal
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Agresh Agrawal, Ashana Agrawal,
Purnwasi Lal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Tej Om Prakash Gupta
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Agresh Agrawal, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Roshan Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State,
Sri Atul Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Tej Om Prakash Gupta,
the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant revision the revisionist has challenged the validity
of an order dated 24.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Prayagraj in Case No.968/XII/2024, titled
Sri Krishna Agrawal Vs. Shamendra Singh, whereby an application filed by
the revisionist under section 173(4) BNSS has been rejected.
3. The revisionist stated in the aforesaid application that he is the registered
owner of plots of land bearing no. 21 Minjumla and 22 Minjumla measuring
213.75 square meters situated at Mauja Chak Noniya, Pargana Arail, Tehsil
Karchhana, District Prayagraj. The opposite party no. 2 Shyamendra Singh
had entered into an agreement for purchasing the land for Rs.35,00,000/- and
he requested the revisionist to execute a sale deed after receiving
Rs.5,00,000/- as the token money and he would give the balance amount
very soon. Believing the opposite party no. 2, the revisionist executed a sale
deed in his favour on 12.12.2019 and the opposite party no. 2 paid
Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque number 410277 on 06.12.2019. The revisionist
demanded the balance amount of sale consideration repetitively, but the
opposite party no. 2 kept on avoiding payment of the same.
4. Because of a typing error in the sale deed dated 12.12.2019, the opposite
party no. 2 asked the revisionist to execute a correction deed. The revisionist
declined to execute the correction deed without receiving the balance
amount of sale consideration. On 01.03.2023, the opposite party no.2

CRLR No. 5798 of 2025
2
transferred Rs.29,15,000/- through RTGS to the bank account of the
revisionist and he asked that he would pay the balance amount of Rs.
85,000/- subsequently. However, the opposite party no. 2 did not pay the
balance amount of Rs. 85,000/- and thereby committed the offence of
embezzlement and criminal breach of trust.
5. The trial court called for a report from the police and the police submitted
a report that no FIR was registered in this regard. The trial court rejected the
application holding that the contents of the application do not make out
commission of any cognizable offence and it appears that the revisionist was
giving a criminal colour to a dispute which is of civil nature. The trial court
relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
: (2021) 14 SCC 626, wherein the Hon'ble
Randheer Singh v. State of U.P.
Supreme Court has held that the disputes of a civil nature should not be
permitted to be given a colour of criminal offence and criminal proceedings
should not become weapons of harassment.
6. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the
revisionist has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1643,
Shikhar Chemicals v. State of U.P.
which arose from an order passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court
rejecting an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid case was
instituted on the basis of a complaint alleging that the parties had business
relations for the past 4-5 years, the complainant had supplied goods to the
respondent's firm worth Rs.52,34,385/- between April to July 2019, the
respondent had paid Rs. 47,75,000/-, but Rs. 4,59,385/- remained unpaid.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that:
The Magistrate unfortunately remained unmindful of the fact
" 13.
that even as per the complainant's own say the case is one of sale
of goods and recovery of some balance amount.
14. It was expected of the Additional CJM to know that in a case of
sale transaction where is the question of any entrustment of goods
so as to bring the case within the ambit of criminal breach of trust
punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. This position of law
came to be explained by this Court almost six decades back in the
landmark decision titled "State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal",
(1968) 2 SCR 408, wherein this Court stated that a mere
transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment. We quote the
relevant observations made by this Court as under:—
8. The term "entrusted" found in Section 405 IPC governs not
"
only the words "with the property" immediately following it but
also the words "or with any dominion over the property"
occurring thereafter — see Velji Raghvaji Patel v. State of
Maharashtra, [(1965) 2 SCR 429]. Before there can be any
entrustment there must be a trust meaning thereby an obligation
annexed to the ownership of property and a confidence reposed in
and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him for

CRLR No. 5798 of 2025
3
the benefit of another or of another and the owner. But that does
not mean that such an entrustment need conform to all the
technicalities of the law of trust — see Jaswantrai Manilal
Akhaney v. State of Bombay, [1956 SCR 483, 498500]. The
expression "entrustment" carries with it the implication that the
person handing over any property or on whose behalf that
property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner.
Further the person handing over the property must have
confidence in the person taking the property so as to create a
fiduciary relationship between them. A mere transaction of sale
cannot amount to an entrustment. It is true that the Government
had sold the cement in question to BSS solely for the purpose of
being used in connection with the construction work referred to
earlier. But that circumstance does not make the transaction in
question anything other than a sale. After delivery of the cement,
the Government had neither any right nor dominion over it. If the
purchaser or his representative had failed to comply with the
requirements of any law relating to cement control, he should have
been prosecuted for the same. But we are unable to hold that there
was any breach of trust.
9. A case somewhat similar to the one before us came up for
consideration before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
in Satyendra Nath Mukherji v. Emperor, [ILR (1947) 1 Cal 97].
These are the facts of that case. One Satya Sunder Mitra was a
contractor. He was granted a permit by the Executive Engineer,
A.R.P. (Shelters), construction division, to purchase seven tons of
cement from Balmer Lawrie and Company. The permit was
granted on the condition that the cement was to be used in the
work connected with the construction of shelters, which work he
had contracted to do for the Executive Engineer. The finding in the
case was that with the help of an employee of Mitra and
Chaudhuri who were banians of Balmer Lawrie and Company, six
tons of cement were diverted and disposed of for another purpose.
The trial court convicted Satya Sunder Mitra under Section 406
IPC and another for abetting the offence committed by Satya
Sunder Mitra. The High Court allowed their appeal, holding that
there was no entrustment of the cement in question within the
meaning of the term as used in Section 405 of Penal Code, 1860.
In the course of the judgment it was observed:
" The permit was granted in accordance with the system of control
established under the Defence of India Rules, under which an
order has been issued by the Government of India preventing
selling agents such as Balmer Lawrie and Company from
delivering any cement except under instructions from the
Government or from the Cement Adviser. The transaction, so far
as the contractor is concerned, was one of purchase and the
property in the cement clearly passed to him. No doubt he could
not have obtained the permit through the Executive Engineer if it
had not been intended that the cement should be used for the
purpose directed by the Engineer, but, in our opinion, in no sense
can it be said that there was any entrustment either of the property
or of any dominion over the property."
We are of the opinion that the legal position is as explained in that

CRLR No. 5798 of 2025
4
decision.
10. The decision of the Kings Bench Division in King v. Grubb, [
[1915] 2 K.B. 683] relied on by Mr. Dhebar learned counsel for
the appellant does not bear on the question under consideration.
Therein, the factum of entrustment was not in dispute. The only
question of law that arose for decision in that case was whether
when a property is entrusted to a company, and the person
directing and controlling the company, by whose instructions the
property had passed into the possession of the company, had
converted the same fraudulently, that person can be said to have
committed an offence under Section 1 of the Larceny Act, 1901.
The court answered that question in the affirmative.
11. ln view of our conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
prove the entrustment pleaded, it is unnecessary to consider
whether on the material on record it can be concluded that the
respondent had misappropriated 40 bags of cement referred to
earlier."
(Emphasis in original)
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held in paragraph 20 of the
judgment in Shikhar Chemicals (supra) that " It was expected of the High
Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a
complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the
same would amount to abuse of process of law." This judgment clearly goes
against the revisionist and citing such a judgment can only be said to be
causing a self-goal.
8. The learned counsel for the revisionist next relied upon an article written
by Dr. Abhishek Gandhi Advocate, which he claims to have downloaded
from Google, and he has submitted that in view of the enunciation of law by
Dr. Abhishek Gandhi, Advocate, the complainant can pursue criminal
proceedings for recovery of money.
9. An article written by an advocate does not amount to law and is not
binding on any Court of law, more particularly the High Courts. The Article
is in the form of bullet points only and it does not refer to any statutory
provision or any law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The printout
of the article supplied by the learned counsel is not readable and he has
written in his own handwriting that " fortunately indian law provides a wide
range of remedies-civil suits, criminal complaints, arbitration, MSME
facilitation and summary proceedings to ensure that rightful dues can be
reclaimed efficiently" .
10. This court is deeply disturbed by the level of advocacy shown by the
learned counsel for the revisionist by citing a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court which goes against the case set up by him, and that too, not
as fair assistance on a question of law, but because of a misunderstanding of
the ratio laid down in the judgment. The act of the learned Counsel for the

CRLR No. 5798 of 2025
5
revisionist in citing an article written by an advocate in the shape of bullet
points only, without referring to any statutory provision and any law laid
down by any constitutional court, regarding which he is not even aware as to
on which website it has been posted, also shows the casual approach of the
learned Counsel.
11. This court has repetitively requested the learned counsel to provide better
assistance to the courts as the courts are working under immense load of
work, most of which are old cases. In Banwari Lal Kanchhal v. State of
U.P. , 2023 SCC OnLine All 2510, this Court had observed that: -
" 85. It is often said that the Judges and the advocates are wheels
of a chariot . For enhancing the speed of this chariot, the other
wheels of the chariot i.e. the learned advocates, should also
change gears and assist the courts more efficiently in order to
enhance the speed of dispensation of justice in the courts."
12. The poor quality of assistance creates hurdles in expeditious dispensation
of justice to litigants. The court once again takes this opportunity to request
the learned Members of the Bar to provide better assistance by coming
prepared in a professional manner and citing relevant law before the court.
13. On merits, the case set up by the revisionist is that he sold an immovable
property to the opposite party no.2 for a total consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-
out of which merely Rs.5,00,000/- were paid to him and the remaining
amount was not paid. A copy of the sale deed dated 12.12.2019 has been
annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision
and there is a categorical averment on pages 11 and 12 of the sale deed that
the seller (revisionist) had received the entire amount of sale consideration
and nothing remained to be paid to him. The revisionist has annexed an
incomplete copy of the sale deed as it does not contain the endorsement
made by the Registrar regarding his satisfaction that the purchaser had
received the sale consideration before execution of the sale deed.
14. A copy of the correction deed dated 13.03.2023 executed by the
revisionist has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in
support of the revision and it says that the consideration clause mentioned in
the sale deed be amended so as to read that Rs. 29,15,000/- had been paid
through RTGS on 01.03.2023, Rs.5,00,000/- had been paid through cheque
number 410277 dated 06.12.2019 and Rs.85,000/- were paid through cheque
number 064840 drawn on Union Bank, Branch Naini on 14.03.2023.
Therefore, as per the narration made in the correction deed, the entire sale
consideration had been paid to the revisionist and it cannot be said that the
cheque for Rs. 85,000/- had not been given to him.
15. Either the revisionist has not presented the cheque to the bank or the
cheque presented has been returned by the bank unpaid. In case the

CRLR No. 5798 of 2025
6
revisionist has not presented the cheque to the bank, the opposite party no. 2-
purchaser cannot be blamed. In case the revisionist has presented the cheque
to the bank and the bank has returned it unpaid, the revisionist had the
remedy to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act.
16. Therefore, the allegations leveled by the revisionist do not make out
commission of any cognizable offence. The learned magistrate has not
committed any error or illegality in dismissing the application under Section
173(4) BNSS.
17. The revision lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed .
November 3, 2026
Ram.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: No

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad