Dismissed

Abdul Aziz v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018A482/7466/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a charge sheet alleging cheating and forgery involving scholarship misuse. The court held that the inquiry report and Section 161 statement are not substantive evidence for quashing the charge sheet or summoning order, denying the plea. The court directed that a bail application should be considered expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The plea to quash the charge sheet and summoning order is rejected.

Abdul Aziz Vs State of U.P. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7466 of 2002

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Aziz Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Mateen Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 25.01.2001 in Case Crime No. 427 of 2000 under Section- 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., P.S.- Tetri Bazar, District- Siddharth Nagar.

¶6

The first information report was lodged by District Welfare Minority Officer, District- Siddharth Nagar, and during investigation, the name of the applicant also surfaced. The allegation against the applicant who was an Assistant Teacher in Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Kashipur was that the applicant had managed to include name of his son Tariq Aziz in the list of students who are given scholarship from another institution although he was student at Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Kashipur and from where also be was availing the same benefit. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the applicant and 3 other persons under Sections- 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. The Learned Magistrate on the basis thereof summoned the applicant, aggrieved whereby, the instant petition was filed. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no case is made out against the applicant from the statement of District Welfare Minority Officer recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that in disciplinary proceedings, the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer also does not indict him.

¶7

It is not disputed that statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor inquiry report submitted in disciplinary proceedings could be treated as substantive piece of evidence to quash the charge sheet or the summoning order. The trial court will have to decide the proceedings on the basis of evidence led before it and in which it shall always be open to the applicant to place reliance upon the inquiry report submitted during disciplinary proceedings or use the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for confronting him at the time of his cross-examination. However, on the said grounds the chargesheet cannot be quashed. In case the applicant applies for bail, it shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 437.

¶8

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶9

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 Rohit

Abdul Aziz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Aziz v. State of U.P.

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

Mohammad Saleem Vs Smt. Shakira Begum

Dr. Prabhat Kumar Sharma Vs Pankaj Sharma and Another

Sri Thakur Sita Ramji Maharaj Virajman Vs Sri Om Prakash and 5 Others

Mahendra Prasad Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghunath Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramanand Upadhyaya Vs Regional Food Controller, Agra Region and Another