Dismissed

Sandeep Kumar and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2019A482/16364/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a summons and criminal proceedings for alleged forged electricity meter alteration, the High Court held that an effective alternative remedy existed under Section 245(2). The prayer for quashing was refused, and the applicants were directed to file a discharge application within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing rejected; application directed to file for discharge under Section 245(2) within 30 days.

Sandeep Kumar and Another Vs State of Up… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16364 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for 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 applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 15.03.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6429/9 of 2012, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506, 119 of I.P.C., Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Muzaffarnagar as well as the order dated 14.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Muzaffarnagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that as per version of the complaint, the applicants got changed the electricity meter, which was in the name of opposite party no. 2 Saleem Ansari, in the name of some other person in collusion with an employee of the Electricity Board. Learned counsel further contended that during enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, no evidence has been produced by opposite party no. 2 to show that the applicants have made any forgery. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶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

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 pass any order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶10

In view of above, prayer for quashing the impugned orders 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

¶12

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 applicants.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 10.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Sandeep Kumar and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar and Another 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

Ramesh and 04 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Abhishek @ Abhishek Mohan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Badri Prasad and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Premanand Garg and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Tara Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another