Disposed

Harish Chandra Arora and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 May 2018A482/15949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet regarding cheating and forgery involving a loan, the Single Judge held that disputed facts precluded quashing at that stage. The application was dismissed but the Court directed surrender for bail consideration within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application refused with direction to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration.

Harish Chandra Arora and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15949 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Harish Chandra Arora And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- B.N.Singh,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 15 of 2012 dated 20.05.2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 647 of 2011, under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Barra, District- Kanpur Nagar as also cognizance has been taken by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar dated 11.07.2012.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no default on part of the applicants in repayment of the loan and therefore, the allegations of cheating and forgery is not made out against the applicants. At present it appears that the allegations against the applicants are that they obtained a car loan on the strength of false and forged papers, which loan had apparently been utilized for the purpose of purchase of car but the same had been used for the personal and other purposes.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 8.5.2018 Lbm/-

Harish Chandra Arora and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra Arora and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manu Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Meena Shukla Vs State of Up and Another

Brajnandan @ Bajrangi Vs State of U.P. and Another