Disposed

Vinay Kumar Rai and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2018A482/9262/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash proceedings for cheating, the court refused to quash the charge sheet due to lack of bank verification. Instead, liberty was granted to move a discharge application, with directions for disposal within three months if applied within one month.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move discharge application within one month; lower court directed to decide within three months.

Vinay Kumar Rai and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9262 of 2005

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Rai And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Rai,Satish Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Basant Kumar Upadhayay, Advocate holding brief Sri P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet and the entire proceedings in Case No.449 of 2005, relating to Crime No.784 of 2004, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 473 & 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant was given benefit of cash credit loan facility of Union Bank of India. He further submitted that bank has lodged FIR against the applicant in which charge has also been submitted. He further submitted that he has filed one application for "One Time Settlement" before the Bank, which was accepted by the Bank vide its order letter dated 18.12.2004. The said letter has annexed as Annexure-7 to this application. He further submitted that under the terms and condition of Settlement, he has deposited money from time to time and ultimately he has deposited last instalment of Rs.4,25,000/-. He further submitted that now after receiving all remaining amount in terms of compromise agreement, bank has issued certificate dated 30.12.2006 discharging the sureties. He further submitted that in light of this fact, Court may proceed to quash the charge sheet.

¶8

Nobody is present on behalf of the bank to verify the correctness of document filed by the applicant along with supplementary affidavit, therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the charge sheet without obtaining the reply of the bank, opposite party no.2.

¶9

Further at this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar

¶10

Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and lastly Amanullah and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2016(6) SCC 699.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has prayed that a liberty may be given to the applicants to appear before the court below through counsel to move discharge application and the court below may be directed to decide the discharge application within the stipulated period.

¶13

Accordingly, liberty is given to the applicants to appear before the court below through counsel to move discharge application within one month from today.

¶14

This application is disposed of with a direction to the court below that in case the applicants appear before the court below through counsel within one month from today and move a discharge application, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within next three months. Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

It is made clear that in case the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, no further time shall be given to them and Court may proceed in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.12.2018 Junaid

Vinay Kumar Rai and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Rai and 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajendra Singh Alias Banti and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Singh Patel and Anr. Vs 1ST Additional Session Judge Sonbhadra and Others

Jalees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishi Kumar Gupta and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh and Others Vs State of U.P.