Partly allowed

Smt. Geeta Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2019A482/19296/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summons and proceedings for cheating and criminal breach of trust. Held quashing not maintainable as prima facie case exists and disputed facts require trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet refused; bail application allowed on appearance and surrender within 30 days; coercive action stayed for that period.

Smt. Geeta Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19296 of 2013

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Geeta Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bimal Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ram Brij Napit

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bimal Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri A.D. Misra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 11.04.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Varanasi as well as entire proceedings of Case No.440 of 2012 (Ganesh Prasad Vs. Geeta Devi and others), under Sections 406, 420 IPC of Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case, till the disposal of this application.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2. It is further contended that the applicant's account No.30321734003 which was opened in the name of accused-applicant no.1 by opposite party no.2 who is husband of accused-applicant no.1, in the said account he had deposited an amount of Rs. 2 lacs between 15.05.2008 to 3.2.2009. The said amount was withdrawn by accused-applicant no.1 without permission of the opposite party no.2 and was credited in the account of her

¶8

parents (father-in-law). He has further argued that wife had full authority to withdraw the said amount as the same existed in the joint name of accused-applicant no.1 as well as opposite party no.2. Therefore, no case is made out under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and hence, the charge sheet which has been submitted by the police after investigation needs to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicant has admitted that accused-applicant has taken the divorce from the opposite party no.2.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.

¶10

I have gone through the impugned order dated 11.04.2013, and find that the trial court has summoned the accusedapplicants on the basis of evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of opposite party no.2 (complainant) as well as of the witnesses which were adduced in support of complainant's version. Contentions made by learned counsel for the applicants before this Court involves appreciation of evidence which is not possible in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It cannot be said that congnizable offence is not made out on the basis of above allegations in the complaint and hence, I do not see any ground to quash the criminal proceedings as prayed by the applicants. The evidence of complainant as well as two witnesses have been recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., after appreciation of which, the trial court has summoned the accused-applicants to face trial under the afore-mentioned sections. The veracity of the said witnesses cannot be tested in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

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 applicants. 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 and 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.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶13

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment 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

¶14

aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.7.2019 Neeraj

Smt. Geeta Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geeta Singh and Another 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

Tipu Sultan Vs State of Up and Another

Sheetal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Mansha Ram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Natthu Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Swami Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.