Disposed

Vishnu Gopal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2018A482/19103/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court decision dismissed a quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding a theft/money laundering case. The court refused quashing absent Supreme Court grounds but directed the summary for discharge application within one month. The court stayed coercive measures for three months.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashance dismissed; applicant permitted to appear and move for discharge; coercive measures stayed for three months.

Vishnu Gopal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19103 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vishnu Gopal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naresh Chandra Tripahti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 8.1.2018 and cognizance order dated 14.3.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 814/IX/2018 (State Vs. Munni Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 214 of 2017, under Section- 409 I.P.C., Police Station- Pahari, District- Chitrakoot, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot .

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was only a Technical Assistant who had verified the fact of certain material having been procured for execution of the public work. However, upon fresh election held, the Gram Pradhan changed and, therefore, it appears that the work was not completed. In such circumstance, it is submitted that the allegation made against the applicant is wholly unsubstantiated inasmuch as he was neither the person to whom the material had been issued nor he is a person who made payment for the same.

¶8

It is then submitted that the FIR had been lodged two and half years after issue of the material. In such facts, no evidence would become available of such material having not been issued two years ago.

¶9

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶10

As requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today.

¶11

No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of three months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

¶12

If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the

¶13

time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.

¶14

With the above observations, this application stands disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Mini

Vishnu Gopal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Gopal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nirmala Paswan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another