Dismissed

Shri Shakeel Ahmad and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2019A482/14916/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order summoning accused in a cheating case (IPC 420) but held that prima facie offence was made out, refusing quashal of proceedings. It granted a 30-day grace period for surrender to consider bail while prohibiting coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashal of proceedings but granted a 30-day grace period for surrender to consider bail without coercive action.

Shri Shakeel Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14916 of 2013

¶3

Applicant :- Shri Shakeel Ahmad And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Nirvikar Gupta,Shahid Ali Ansari

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Surendra Nath Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Syed Mohammad Nazar Bokhari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3242 of 2012, under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar and also quash the summoning order dated 13.2.2013.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated. No documentary evidence has been given in support of the prosecution version and yet the accused-applicants have been summoned under Section 420 IPC by the trial court through impugned order., therefore, impugned order needs to be quashed. He further submits that if the proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to abuse of process of law. He further argued that civil dispute is pending between the parties and the matter is of civil nature.

¶9

Learned O.P. No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and stated that without his consent his name has been deleted from the partnership firm and the accrual of the benefits and the losses of the firm have been tampered with/manipulated by the accused-applicants.

¶10

I have gone through the complaint case.

¶11

The allegation made in the said complaint is that both the parties had established a Firm by the name RESTORA COIR India Laminated, in which the opposite party no. 2 was shown as partner in the balance-ship up to only 2009-10 but in the years thereafter i.e. 2010-11 and 2011-12 without any notice, his name has been removed from the Firm in violation of the

¶12

terms and conditions of the partnership and 19% share of the opposite party no. 2 has been usurped by the accusedapplicants. The allegation levelled in the complaint constitutes a cognizable offence. The evidence which has been recorded by the trial court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. cannot be dis-believed in the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as the same would require trial.

¶13

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 . The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶14

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶15

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.7.2019 A.P. Pandey

Shri Shakeel Ahmad and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shakeel Ahmad and 3 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

Laxmi @ Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Sahdev Mukherjee Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Kushal Pal Deshwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tanveer Fatima and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanka Vs State of U.P.and Another