{"id":120445,"date":"1998-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998"},"modified":"2016-05-11T09:21:35","modified_gmt":"2016-05-11T03:51:35","slug":"gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998","title":{"rendered":"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1998 VIAD Delhi 817, 1999 (1) Crimes 39, 75 (1998) DLT 717, 1998 (47) DRJ 438<\/div>\n
Author: D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: D Gupta, N Nandi<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Devinder Gupta, J. <\/p>\n
1.     In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought  quashing of FIR No. 212\/98 registered with P.S.  Chittranjan  Park, South  District,  New  Delhi dated 30.5.1998  for  offence  under  Sections 420\/34, IPC, on the complaint of respondent No. 5.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  main ground on which quashing is sought is that assuming all  the allegation in the complaint to be true, the same does not disclose  commission  of any cognizable offence; the same at the most amounts to breach  of contract.  It  could not give rise to a criminal prosecution and  that  too after a lapse of almost four years. Respondent No. 5 in connivance with the police  has  managed to get a civil wrong converted into  a  criminal  one, which  is  nothing,  but  gross abuse of the process of  law.  As  per  the complainant’s  own  showing, the goods were exported to the  petitioner  in March, 1995 against valid documents against part payment of the value of the goods. There was dispute with respect to quality of goods and late  arrival thereof. As such, in October, 1995, the petitioner agreed to compensate the complainant and agreed to make payment of an agreed amount, which was  less than  the  amount of the original balance amount. Payment  of  this  agreed amount could not be made. Therefore, non-payment of such amount of  compensation  will not give rise to any criminal liability as it was not  on  account of any dishonest intention or fraudulent inducement.\n<\/p>\n
3. In order to appreciate the respective submission made at the Bar,  it will be but proper to extract the complaint, which respondent No.  5  addressed to the Station House Officer, P.S. Chittranjan Park, which led  to registration of the FIR. The complaint reads :\n<\/p>\n
     “To <\/p>\n
     The Station House Officer, <\/p>\n
     Police Station Chittranjan Park, <\/p>\n
     New Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
   Sub: Registration of FIR against Mr. Gagan Srivastava, Mrs.  Renu   Srivastava and Harsh Garg all residing at D-29, Saket, New  Delhi   and having their office at B-25\/1, Okhla Ind. Area, Phase-II, New  Delhi – 110020.\n<\/p>\n
     Sir, <\/p>\n
     We M\/s. Passion Apparel Private Limited. manufactures and exporters of Textiles and ready made garments, having our office at  E- 107, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-III, New Delhi-110048 bring  to your notice the following facts :\n<\/p>\n
  1.That we are engaged in the business of manufactures  and  exports of Textiles and ready made garments for the last 4 years;\n<\/p>\n
  2. That on 15th November, 1994, one Mr. Gagan Srivastava,  Managing  Director  of M\/s. Avren Junge Mode Gmbh Haus Der  Mode,  1\/8 Kolna  STR 1 65768 Eschborn, Germany- approached for purchase  of various  readymade garments. The total prices of the goods to  be purchased  by him was worth 4,46,597.25. Deutsch marks. The  said good were to be exported to Germany by us and Mr. Gagan Srivastava induced to believe that we would make the payment of the  said goods  on receipt of the same. Copies of the order placed by  Mr. Gagan  Srivastava are appended hereto as Annexure-1 sent  to  the  complainant. That as per the understanding agreed between us,  we and Mr. Gagan Srivastava, it was agreed that Mr. Gagan Srivastava would  make the payment within 15 days from the date of  the  invoice of the goods which were to be despatched by us to  Germany. It would be relevant to mention that we were not exporting  goods earlier  and  it is only at the instance and  inducement  of  Mr. Srivastava that we exported goods for the first time.\n<\/p>\n
     3. That believing the statement made by Mr. Gagan Srivastava,  we    despatched  the  goods worth 4,46,597.25 D.M. in  the  months  of  March,  April, 1995 via and Air through Kuwait Airways and  Lufthansa Cargo to Mr. Srivastava. The said goods were received by 37 different  invoices and the goods were received 105  Eschborn  at Germany  and were released by him and were sold as  subsequently. Copy of the release certificate is appended as Annexure-2 to  the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
    4.That despite of having received the goods  worth  4,46,597.25  D.M.  Mr. Gagan Srivastava made payment for 1,15,194.00 D.M. and the balance payment of 3,31,403.25 D.M. was not made.\n<\/p>\n
     5.  That  in the month of October, 1995 our director  Mr.  Rajesh    Bajaj had to go to Germany for realising the said payment and  on  October  7th,  1995 an understanding was reached with  Mr.  Gagan Srivastava that he would make the payment of 2,00,000 D.M. by end of  May, 1996 and will not make any claim on the quality  or  any other  account on said goods. It was agreed by him that  we  will have  to  send new documents to his Bank i.e.  Frankfurter  Sparkasse.  A true copy of the Minute of Meeting dated  7th  October, 1995 is appended hereto as Annexure-3 to the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
     6.  That  on  return from Germany we  presented  documents  worth     2,13,572 D.M. for payment for which acceptance was granted by the  Bank.  However, the said documents were also returned  unpaid  by the Bank of Mr. Gagan Srivastava. True copy of the said documents is appended hereto as Annexure-4 to the complaint. \n \n\n     7. That on June 21, 1996 one Mr. Harsh Garg who is a relative and    also empowered jointly on behalf of Avren Junge Mode GMBH  agreed to make the payment of 2,13,372\/- D.M. by end of December,  1996.  A true copy of the letter dated 21 June, 1996 is appended  hereto as Annexure-5 to the complaint. \n \n\n     8.  However, this commitment was also not honoured later  by  Mr.     Gagan Srivastava or Mr. Harsh Garg. \n \n\n     9.  That  later on we came to know that by  the  aforesaid  modus     operandi Mr. Gagan Srivastava has also duped other  manufacturers in India and it is believed that he owes Rs. 10 crores in all  to the  various  parties.  That in order to get our  money  back  we approached the Indo-German Chamber of Commerce at New Delhi,  the President  of  Germany, the Embassy in India and  Deutsch  Bundus Bank of Germany. That the Indo-German Chamber of Commerce was not able  to trace Mr. Gagan Srivastava or Mr. Harsh Garg.  Similarly Frankfurter  Sparkasse Bank was also not able to trace Mr.  Gagan Srivastava. \n \n\n     10. That we also came to know that Mr. Gagan Srivastava had  left    Germany and was residing at Poland and thereafter Russia. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
     11.  That the aforesaid facts clearly reveal that Mr. Gagan  Srivastava  had induced to believe that he was a genuine person  and  on that belief he had sold goods to him. However, it appears that his intentions were not clear from the beginning and he has  sold the  goods  which were received by him and he  has  pocketed  the money  into  his own account knowing fully well that  he  has  no right  on the said amount. The said fact is also clear  that  Mr. Gagan  rivastava has induced us to send the bill of exchange  for payment  for  the  goods but the said bill of  exchange  was  not honoured by his Bank and thus from the very beginning the  intention of Mr. Gagan Srivastava were not clear and he has cheated us to  the extent of 2,13,372\/- D.M. That we have come to know  that Mr. Gagan Srivastava is presently at New Delhi and is residing at D-29 Saket, New Delhi alongwith his wife Mrs. Renu Srivastava and Mr.  Harsh  Garg. Mrs. Renu Srivastava is a share holder  of  the company  of which Mr. Gagan Srivastava is the Managing  Director. Therefore, she and Mr. Harsh Garg are equally responsible for the  act of Mr. Gagan Srivastava. We have also come to know that  Mrs. Gagan  Srivastava has an office at B-25\/1 Okhla Industrial  Area, Phae-II, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
     12. That due to the non payment by Avren Junge Mode GHBH of which    Mr.  Gagan  Srivastava is the Managing Director,  we  are  facing  problems from Reserve Bank of India and we had to sell our Factory  S-34,  Okhla Ind. Area Phase-II, New Delhi in order  to  make payment to our suppliers. We, therefore, request you to  register an FIR against Mr. Gagan Srivastava, Mrs. Renu Srivastava and Mr. Harsh Garg and appropriate action against them.\n<\/p>\n
     Sd\/.\n<\/p>\n
     English Rajesh Bajaj”\n<\/p>\n
4.   The facts, as stated in the aforementioned complaint, do suggest that on  15.11.1994 on the petitioner approaching respondent No. 5, goods  worth 4,46,597.25  Deutsch Marks were agreed to be exported by respondent  No.  5 against  part  payment of 1,15,194.00 D.M. As per  the  understanding,  the balance amount of 3,31,403.25 D.M. was to be paid by the petitioner  within fifteen  days from the date of the receipt of invoice of the goods.  Though the  goods were received by the petitioner and were sold subsequently,  the payment, as agreed, was not made. As such, in October, 1995, respondent No. 5  went to Germany. On 7.10.1995, an understanding was arrived at.  Instead and in place of 3,31,403.25 D.M., the petitioner agreed to pay  2,00,000.00 D.M. by the end of May, 1996 and not to make any claim on the quality or on any other account on the said goods, for which respondent No. 5 had to send fresh  documents to the petitioner’s Bank. On arrival of respondent  No.  5 back  to India, when fresh documents for 2,13,372 D.M. were sent, the  same on  presentation were returned unpaid by the petitioner’s banker. As  such, in  June,  1996 petitioner’s relation Harsh Garg agreed to  make  the  said payment of 2,13,372 D.M. by the end of December, 1996, which commitment was also  not honoured. Respondent No. 5 says that by such modus operandi,  the petitioner had also duped other manufacturers in India and had left Germany for  Poland and thereafter to Russia. Thus according to respondent  No.  5, the petitioner had induced him that he was a genuine person. On that belief alone, the goods were sent to the petitioner, who had now failed to  honour his commitment.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  question, therefore, arising for our consideration would be  that whether the facts, as disclosed in the complaint, constitute an offence  of cheating,  as  defined in Section 415 of the Penal Code,  punishable  under Section 420, IPC. Cheating has been defined in Section 415, IPC as:\n<\/p>\n
     “415.  Cheating _ Whoever, by deceiving any person,  fraudulently    or  dishonestly  induces the person so deceived  to  deliver  any property  to  any  person, or to consent that  any  person  shall retain  any property or intentionally induces the person  so  deceived to do or omit anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is like to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,  reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.<\/p>\n
     Illustration (g) to Section 415 says :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n     “(g)  A  intentionally deceives Z into a belief that  A  mean  to     deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend  to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to  advance  money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and  afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver  it,  he  does  not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for  breach of contract.” <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A bare reading of definition of cheating would suggest that there are two  elements thereof, namely, deception and dishonest intention to  do  or omit  to  do something. In order to bring a case within the first  part  of Section  415,  it is essential, in the first place, that  the  person,  who delivers the property should have been deceived before he makes the  delivery;  and  in the second place that he should have been induced  to  do  so fraudulently or dishonestly. Where property is fraudulently or  dishonestly obtained, Section 415 would bring the said act within the ambit of cheating provided  the property is so obtained by deception. Supreme Court  in  Hari Prasad  Chamaria  Vs.  Bishun Kumar Surekha and Others, ,
\nupheld  the decision of Patna High Court quashing the proceedings  launched against  Bishun  Kumar Surekha by Hari Prasad Chamaria  for  offence  under Section 420, IPC. It was held :\n<\/p>\n
     “We have heard Mr. Maheshwari on behalf of the appellant and  are of  the  opinion that no case has been made out against  the  respondents under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. For the purpose of the present appeal, we would assume that the various  allegations  of  fact which have been made in the complaint by  the  appellant are  correct. Even after making that allowance, we find that  the  complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence on  the  part of  the respondents under Section 420, Indian  Penal  Code. There  is nothing in the complaint to show that  the  respondents had  dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the  appellant arted with Rs. 35,000\/-. There is also nothing to indicate  that the respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs. 35,000\/- by deceiving him. It is further not the case of the appellant that a representation  was made by the respondents to him at  or  before the  time  he  paid the money to them and that at  the  time  the representation  was  made, the respondents knew the  same  to  be false.  The  fact that respondent subsequently did not  abide  by  their  commitment  that they would show the appellant to  be  the proprietor  of Drang Transport Corporation and would also  render accounts  to  him  in the month of December  might  create  civil liability  for  them, but this fact would not  be  sufficient  to fasten  criminal liability on the respondents for the offence  of cheating.”\n<\/p>\n
6.   Applying  the ratio of the decision of Hari Prasad’s case  (supra)  to the facts as stated in the complaint in the instant case, which we for  the purposes of the present proceedings presume to be correct, it must be  held that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence of  cheating punishable  under Section 420, IPC on the part of the petitioner. There  is nothing  in the complaint to suggest that the petitioner had  dishonest  or fraudulent  intention  at  the time the  respondent  exported  goods  worth 4,46,597.25  D.M. by 37 different invoices. There is also nothing to  indicate  that  the  petitioner by deceiving respondent No. 5  induced  him  to export goods worth, 4,46,597.25 D.M.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  fact, as disclosed in the complaint suggest that after the  goods were  despatched,  some dispute had been raised by the  petitioner  due  to which  the  balance payment of 3,31,403.25 D.M. was not made  by  him.  The dispute  admittedly  was about the quality of the goods and  late  delivery thereof. In order to settle the dispute, the complainant does suggest  that a meeting took place in Germany. On 7.10.1995 an understanding was  reached under  which the petitioner agreed that he will not now make any  claim  on the quality or the other dispute about late delivery of goods and will make payment of 2,00,000 D.M. by the end of May, 1996, for which respondent  No. 5  had to send fresh documents to the petitioner’s Bank. When this  commitment  was not honoured as the documents, when presented, were not  accepted for  payment  by the petitioner banker, respondent No. 5  approached  Harsh Garg,  who  assured that payment would be forthcoming  in  December,  1996. Thus,  it is also not suggested from the complaint that even at that  stage when  settlement  was  arrived at on 7.10.1995 at Germany,  there  was  any dishonest intention.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Learned  Counsel for the petitioner contended that the admitted position, as has now become apparent from the material placed on record of this case  by  respondent  No. 5 is that w.e.f. 9.12.1996,  the  petitioner  had applied for commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, for which notice  dated 6.2.1997  (copy of which has been produced by respondent No. 5  along  with his reply) was duly served by the petitioner’s lawyer on respondent No.  5. Sending of such notice to respondent No. 5 suggest that the concerned Court at  Germany  had  been apprised by the petitioner of the  debt  payable  to respondent  No.  5. Respondent No. 5 deliberately did not disclose  in  his complaint  the fact of the commencement of such bankruptcy  proceedings  by the petitioner. Thus by concealment of material facts, criminal action  has been set in motion, which is nothing but total abuse of the process of law.\n<\/p>\n
9.   We need not go into the legality, validity or motive of initiating the bankruptcy  proceedings except to remark that in case respondent No. 5  had become  aware  of  bankruptcy proceedings on receipt of  the  notice  dated  6.2.1997,  his  remedy  would be to approach the  appropriate  Court  where bankruptcy  proceedings  are pending laying claim for the debt and  not  to resort  to criminal proceedings. Commencement or pendency of such  proceedings  of  bankruptcy has not been taken as a ground by the  petitioner  for quashing  of FIR and for that reason, we need not dilate any more  on  this aspect. We are concerned with the quashing of FIR on the grounds  aforementioned.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The law is well settled that extraordinary power under Article 226  of the  Constitution or the inherent powers under the Code of Criminal  Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with  circumspection and that too, as laid down in State of Haryana &  Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., , to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. In the said  decision, the  Supreme Court by way of illustration categorized the  following  seven types of cases in which such power could be exercised saying it may not  be
\npossible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently  channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kind of cases wherein such power should be exercised.\n<\/p>\n
     1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report  or     the  complaint,  even if they are taken at their face  value  and  accepted  in  their entirety do not prima  facie  constitute  any  offence or make out a case against the accused. \n \n\n     2.  Where  the allegations in the First  Information  Report  and     other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not  disclose a  cognizable  offence,  justifying an  investigation  by  Police  Officers  under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an  order of a Magistrate within the preview of Section 155(2) of the Code. \n \n\n     3.  Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or  complaint  and the evidence collected in support of the same do  not disclose  the  commission  of any offence and  make  out  a  case against the accused. \n \n\n     4.  Where,  the  allegations in the F.I.R. do  not  constitute  a    cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable  offence, no  investigation  is permitted by a Police  Officer  without  an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. \n \n\n     5.  Where  the allegations made in the FIR or  complaint  are  so    absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is  sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. \n \n\n     6.  Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any  of  the    provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal roceeding is instituted) to the institution and  continuance of the proceedings and\/or where there is a specific provision  in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress  for the grievance of the aggrieved party. \n \n\n     7.  Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with  mala     fide  and\/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted  with  an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with  a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. \n \n \n\n11.  It is equally true that the investigation into an offence is a  statutory  function of the police and the superintendence thereof is  vested  in the State Government and the Court is not justified, as held in M\/s. Jayant Vitamins  Ltd.  Vs. Chaitanya kumar & Anr., ,  without  any \ncompelling and justifiable reasons to quash the investigation mid-way. \n \n\n12.  If  the ratio of the two cases aforementioned is applied to the  facts of  the  instant  case, taking the allegations made in  the  complaint  and documents  accompanied therewith on their face value and accepting  in  entirety,  they do not prima facie constitute any offence against  the  peti-\ntioner, what to say the offence of cheating. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
13.  In the words of Supreme Court in Hari Prasad Chamaria’s case  (supra), the  mere fact that the petitioner after having agreed to pay  the  balance within  15 days of the receipt of invoices and thereafter in  the  negotiations, which took place on 7.10.1995, failed to honour his commitments, the same  would  not expose him to any criminal liability, but  only  to  civil liability.  On the face of it on the basis of the allegations, as  made  in the complaint, it is purely a commercial transaction, which in nutshell  is that  the  seller did not pay the balance amount of the goods  received  by him,  as per his assurance, firstly because of certain  disputes  regarding quality  and late delivery of goods, whereafter when an  understanding  was arrived  at, under which the buyer agreed to compensate the seller  without raising any dispute which commitment was also not honoured. This act  would be a breach of commitment giving rise to a civil action and not a  criminal one.  Neither it is suggested that at the time of delivery of goods,  there was  any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of  the  petitioner, nor  at  the time when the goods were received by the petitioner  that  the same  were  done by him by inducing respondent No. 5 or by  deceiving  him. Failure to pay the amount by the petitioner would only give rise to a civil liability  for breach of agreement. Needless to add that respondent  No.  5 resorted  to  criminal proceedings and that also after a period  of  almost four  years from the date of supply of goods and after a period  of  almost one  year  and  three  months of the date of receipt  of  notice  from  the petitioner’s  Counsel that the petitioner had applied for  commencement  of bankruptcy  proceedings  on 9.12.1996. Filing of such  complaint  in  these circumstances is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law.\n<\/p>\n
14.  For the reasons aforementioned, the petition is allowed. The  impugned FIR  and  all the proceedings taken thereunder are quashed and  set  aside. Observations  made  while  disposing of this petition will  not  affect or prejudice the petitioner and respondent No. 5 in any other proceedings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1998 VIAD Delhi 817, 1999 (1) Crimes 39, 75 (1998) DLT 717, 1998 (47) DRJ 438 Author: D Gupta Bench: D Gupta, N Nandi JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J. 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-11T03:51:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-11T03:51:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3022,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998\",\"name\":\"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-11T03:51:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-11T03:51:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998","datePublished":"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-11T03:51:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998"},"wordCount":3022,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998","name":"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-11T03:51:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-kishore-srivastava-vs-state-ors-on-2-september-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gagan Kishore Srivastava vs State & Ors. on 2 September, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120445","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120445"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120445\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}