Dismissed

Radha Krishna v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2019A482/14686/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

disposed of an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of summoning order and proceedings. Court refused quashing, directing the applicant to seek discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC via the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of summoning order and proceedings refused. Applicant directed to file discharge application under S. 245(2) CrPC within 30 days.

Radha Krishna Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14686 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Radha Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rudresh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 04.12.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1260 of 2017 (Vikas Singh Kushwaha v. Radha Krishna and others), under Sections 419, 420 of IPC, Police Station - Salempur, District - Deoria, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 19, Deoria.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that as per allegation of complaint, a registered sale deed dated 24.04.2015 of a land belonging to opposite party no. 2 Vikas Singh Kushwaha and his uncle Ram Bihari was said to be executed by the applicant in favour of his wife Kusumawati by forging their signatures. Learned counsel further contended that sale deed has been executed by opposite party no. 2 Vikas Singh Kushwaha and his uncle Ram Bihari. Until the registered sale deed is cancelled, it shall be presumed that sale deed has been executed by the executor and it shall be considered a genuine document. Opposite party no. 2 has not filed any expert report to show that signature of Vikas Singh Kushwaha and Ram Bihari are forged. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶9

Alternate remedy is available to the applicant to submit application under Section 245(2) of the Code to get himself 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 impugned

¶11

summoning order as well as the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶12

Accordingly, it is directed that in case the applicant files an application under Section 245(2) of the Code for discharge through counsel 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.

¶13

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicant.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Radha Krishna v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Krishna 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

Munish Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangroo @ Hari Shanker Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhinav Chaturvedi @ Sonu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Inam Vs State of Up and Another

Rajesh Pathak and 3 Ors. Vs State of Up and Another

Baburam and 9 Others Vs State of Up and Another