Dismissed

Ram Murti and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2019A482/14652/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the prayer to quash the summoning order in a cheating complaint, noting the availability of an alternative discharge remedy under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., and granted 30 days to file such an application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash refused. Applicants directed to file discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. within 30 days. No coercive action to be taken pending disposal.

Ram Murti and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14652 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Murti And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 18.09.2017, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3797 of 2017 (Smt. Nargis Begum v. Ram Murti & others), under Sections 420, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Amariya, District - Pilibhit, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicants have executed a registered sale deed in favour of opposite party no. 2, Smt. Nargis Begum. Later on, she demanded her money from the applicants, but the applicants refused to pay her. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 Smt. Nargis Begum filed this complaint. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶9

Alternative remedy is available to the applicants to submit application under Section 245(2) of the Code to get themselves discharged. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶10

In view of above, prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶11

Accordingly, it is directed that in case the applicants file an application under Section 245(2) of the Code for discharge within 30 days from today, the same shall be decided by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, the instant application stands disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 19.4.2019 v.k.updh.

Ram Murti and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Murti and 2 Others v. State of Up 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

Shahid and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Anil Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yunus Vs State of U.P. and Another

Noor Mohammad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramannu Lal @Munnu Lal and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Sajid and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another