Allowed

Sanju Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2018A482/29003/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a cognizance order. The Court set aside the order requiring summons against applicants for forgery charges, holding that there was no evidence on record to compare signatures on a photostat copy of a will deed at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cognizance order dated 23.08.2016 set aside; Magistrate directed to pass fresh order on police report submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC.

Sanju Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29003 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Sanju Gupta And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajatshatru Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in the Court today, the same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttar Pradesh in opposition.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 23.08.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, District - Hathras in Case No. 79 of 2016 (Mohit Kumar v. Sanju Gupta and others), under Sections 120B, 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), Police Station - Sadabad Kotwali, District - Hathras, whereby final report (Final Report No. 231 of 2015) dated 28.12.2015 submitted by the police in Case Crime No. 826 of 2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was rejected and accused-applicants - Sanju Gupta, Sunil Kumar, Vishnu Mohan Gupta, Hemant Dubey and Brajmohan were summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC.

¶9

As per prosecution version, on 14.03.2011, a forged will deed was executed in the name of Ram Sewak by some impersonator, in favour of applicant no. 1 Sanju Gupta. Ram Sewak has not executed any such registered will deed, but the registered will deed in question was executed by another person impersonating himself as Ram Sewak. The police, after investigation, submitted final report against the applicants on the ground that civil suit is pending in civil court for cancellation of registered will deed alleged to have been impersonated.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that there is no evidence on record to show that the will deed in question has not been executed by Ram Sewak. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that the fact whether evidence is sufficient to proceed against the applicants or not, shall be examined at the time of trial and not at this stage. He further contended that from the content of first information report and material available on the record, cognizable

¶12

offence is made out against the applicants.

¶13

Concurring with the contention raised by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the courts below.

¶14

From the perusal of impugned order, it reveals that on the basis of photostat copy of the registered will deed, signature of Ram Sewak was compared with the admitted signature of Ram Sewak. However, on the basis of photostat copy of will deed, signature cannot be compared.

¶15

Accordingly, without evidence of this fact that will deed has not been executed by Ram Sewak, at this stage, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence has been committed by the applicants.

¶16

In view of above, the order passed by learned Magistrate is without evidence and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Resultantly, the instant application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed. The impugned cognizance order dated 23.08.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, District - Hathras is hereby set aside.

¶18

However, learned Magistrate is directed to pass fresh order according to law on the police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.12.2018 I. Batabyal

Sanju Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju Gupta and 4 Others 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

Siddharth Paliwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Janki Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ujagir Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Basu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Kiran Singh Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others