Dismissed

Prabhu Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019A227/9777/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of a discharge application and revision. The court held that the lower courts had sufficient material to form a prima facie opinion that charges were made out and found no manifest error of law warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the discharge order and revisional order is dismissed.

Prabhu Narain Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9777 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Prabhu Narain Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶6

This misc. petition (criminal) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order of discharge dated 01.05.2018 and the order passed in Revision dated 04.10.2018 arising out of Criminal Case No. 1496 of 2015.

¶7

Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner before this Court claims to be the counsel of the opposite party no. 2 in some partition suit pending before the civil court instituted by daughter in law of opposite party no. 2. The allegations have come up in the FIR to the effect that the petitioner, in collusion with other persons named in the charge sheet, got executed sale deeds in respect of house property of opposite party no. 2 as a part conspiracy to defraud her in the name of cancellation of same deed and they have also taken money of Rs. 4 lacs and thus have defrauded opposite party no. 2. The charge sheet has come to be filed after thorough investigation by the police after recording statements of opposite party no. 2 and other persons. Initially the applicant along with other co accused filed Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 36898 of 2015 challenging the charge sheet in the present case. However, this Court declined to interfere in the matter of charge sheet and disposed of the 482 Cr.P.C. petition vide order dated 12.12.2015 only with a direction for consideration of bail of the applicant in accordance with law and the time was further allowed to the applicant therein to surrender before the court below.

¶8

At the time of framing of charge, the applicant moved discharge application stating therein that he has falsely implicated in the criminal case and regarding the money transaction of which cheque was being claimed by opposite party no. 2 had been given to the applicant had already been submitted in Allahabad Bank and was still lying there and not encashed. The trial court looked into the materials that have been submitted in the form of statements along with case diary by the police and having examined the statements recorded

¶9

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other aspects of the matter declined to allow the discharge application holding that whatever the material in the form of documentary evidence was being filed by the applicant at the time of discharge cannot be taken as evidence and it was always open for the applicant to lead evidence as and when time arises for the same. The court found that as far as the allegations in the FIR which were investigated by the police and charges have come to be framed against the applicant, there was sufficient material available on record to prima facie form an opinion that the charges were made out. Against the order dated 01.05.2018 passed by the trial court rejecting the discharge application, the applicant preferred the revision and the revision also came to be dismissed by the court below vide order dated 04.10.2018.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and the arguments advanced across the bar and the pleadings raised in the 482 Cr.P.C. petition supported by an affidavit and having gone thoroughly through the judgments passed by trial court as well as the court sitting in revision, rejecting of discharge application, I find the courts have recorded a categorical finding of fact to the effect that there were sufficient material to prima facie form an opinion that the charges are made out. Not only the trial court but the revisional court had discussed in detail the statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and documents led before the Investigating Officer and has come to record the finding to the effect that there is no reason not to believe the statements prima facie as have been made before the police. It has been observed by the court below that whatever the report is to be submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the same is to be submitted on the basis of statements recorded by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer found that the charges were made out, the courts below are fully justified in holding that it would look only those materials that were available as referred to in the case diary and the statements recorded by the police.

¶11

I also find that there is no such material aspect of the matter which can be said to have been looked by the court sitting in revision. This Court while hearing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. exercising extraordinary power will not travel beyond the pleadings that have been already raised and will cetainly not invite any further evidence over and above what were available before the court below. It is a fact also to be considered while questioning the charge, the applicant has also failed to file any statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. However, learned counsel for the respondent has placed the same before the court and also the statement of of accounts of the bank from which it is clearly reflected that the cheque was deposited in the account in the

¶12

name of applicant. However, without going into the merits of the case, it is sufficient to hold that the findings recorded by the court below do not warrant any interference. There is no manifest error of law reflected on the face of the judgmetn so as to warrant interference in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 8.1.2019 IrfanUddin

Prabhu Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Narain Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tara Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shanker and 02 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Mohd. Avval Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Abdul Raoof Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.