This single-judge court dismissed the applicant's Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of proceedings. The allegations involved cheating by misrepresenting tenancy as ownership. No case was made out for discharge and interference was rejected; the trial was directed to conclude expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16480 of 2018
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Rajvansi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings as well as order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Meerut whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the revision filed by the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2015 (Vinod Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 420 IPC as well as order dated 09.09.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mawana whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mawana, Meerut rejected the discharge application of the applicant in Case No. 355 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 2007, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station- Mawana, District- Meerut, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mawana, Meerut.
At this stage, it appears that the allegation made against the applicant is of having committed cheating by declaring himself as the owner of the immovable property of which, the applicant was only a tenant.
In view of the above facts, as has been noted by the learned Court below, no case is made out for discharge. The applicant has already been enlarged on bail.
No further interference is warranted, at this stage.
The present application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .
However, it is expected that the learned Court below shall proceed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 10.5.2018 A. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the entire proceedings under Section 420 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the impugned orders rejecting revision and discharge applications lack merit for interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Kumar Rajvansi
State Of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
