'Kalyugi Bharat': Allahabad High Court Rebukes Man For Filing Criminal Case Against Elder Brother To 'Wreak Vengeance'

Calling the younger brother/complainant a 'Kalyugi Bharat' (कलयुगी भरत), a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery quashed the entire case proceedings as well as summoning order in connection with an FIR lodged against the elder brother/Applicant under Section 406 IPC (Punishment for criminal breach of trust).

The Court also noted that, based on the material against the petitioner, none of the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust were made out.

In brief, the complainant (younger brother), an advocate by profession, alleged that his elder brother (the applicant) committed a criminal breach of trust by failing to return ₹2.20 lakh given for business purposes. Despite repeated assurances of returning it, he refused to do so after their father's death.

Additionally, the complainant also alleged that the applicant, on the basis of an alleged Will, not only opened a joint account with his father, but, after his death, he withdrew money without his consent.

An FIR was lodged in this regard in November 2017. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in January 2019 for an offence under Section 406 IPC only for the allegation that the applicant had not returned Rs.2.20 lakh.

The applicant moved the HC in 2020, challenging the chargesheet, cognisance, and summoning order. At a later stage in the proceedings of the present case, both parties, being real brothers, showed their readiness to negotiate.

However, the matter could not be settled amicably despite the Court's intervention due to the adamant approach of the parties, particularly of the complainant, and hence, the matter was finally heard.

In its order, the Court noted that the requirement for the commission of an offence of criminal breach of trust is that there must be entrustment with property which was dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use and it must be in violation of any direction of law or any legal contract express or implied.

however, in the present case, neither there was an 'entrustment' in such sense, nor there was any proof that it was 'dishonestly misappropriate' nor there was any evidence that such act was in violation of any legal contract express or implied.

Therefore, the Court concluded that, on the basis of the material, none of the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust were made out.

The Court further noted that the alleged amount had already been returned during the pendency of this application when parties were trying to negotiate.

“The proceedings appears to be initiated by the complainant only to put pressure on his elder brother to negotiate since there is a Will wherein the complainant is not a beneficiary,” the Court observed.

Against this backdrop, noting that the proceedings were initiated only to harass the applicant by giving the cloak of a criminal case to a dispute that was essentially of a civil nature, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings and also directed the complainant to pay Rs.25,000/—as a cost of litigation to the applicant within four weeks.

“The Court deems fit to conclude this judgment with a parting remark that we always cherish sacrifice of the Bharat (भरत), younger brother of the Bhagwan Shri Ram but the complainant for his conduct towards his elder brother could be termed as a 'Kalyugi Bharat (कलयुगी भरत)”, the Court observed as it parted with the order.

Case title - Sanjeev Chaddha vs. State Of U.P. And Anr

Case citation :

Click here ToRead/Download Order