Allowed

Nafees Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018A482/7388/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Section 406 IPC. The Court held the proceedings were not maintainable against a former sales manager for a firm agreement and were time-barred as the complaint was filed beyond three years.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Case No. 947 of 2002 under Section 406 IPC pending in Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti are quashed.

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7388 of 2006

¶3

Applicant :- Nafees Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hardev Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Government Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. None present on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶6

This petition was filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 947 of 2002 (Suhail Ahmad Vs. G.V. Kanaudia and others), under Section 406 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Basti pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti and further prayed to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was Sales Manager of the Firm, Kanaudia Beverage Limited whereas agreement took place between the opposite party no. 2 with Managing Director of the above referred Firm. The applicant was only Sales Manager and has nothing to do with the agreement that took place between the parties. It is also submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that after the agreement, various transactions took place between the parties and in the year 2000 applicant left the services. It is last submission of the learned counsel that the case has been filed in the year 2002 when applicant was not in the service and moreover any due that was there of the complainant has already been paid by draft.

¶8

From the facts if can be inferred that agreement between the opposite party no. 2 and Kanaudia Beverage Limited took place and applicant was only Sales Manager in the Firm. Accordingly, if any liability is there, that ought to have been against the Firm and its Director and not upon the Sales Manager i.e. applicant. The complaint against the applicant was not maintainable.

¶9

From the perusal of complaint it can be inferred that incident is of 1998 is being shown for the cause of action whereas petition has been filed in the year 2002 under Section 406 IPC. The office under Section 406 IPC is punishable for three years and any complaint ought to have been filed within three years of the cause of action whereas complaint has been filed after three

¶10

years of the cause of action and accordingly complaint is barred by Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

Consequently, petition succeeds.

¶12

The proceedings of Case No. 947 of 2002 (Suhail Ahmad Vs. G.V. Kanaudia and others), under Section 406 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Basti, against the applicant, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, are hereby quashed.

¶13

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Ranjeet Sahu

Nafees Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafees Ahmad 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

Vikas Bhatia and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vishwanath and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bal Kishan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra and Others Vs State of U.P.

Govind Lal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vijay Shanker Vs State of U.P.