Satveer v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
This application sought to quash a summoning order and an order rejecting a revision application. The court held that an alternate remedy exists under Section 245(2) of the CrPC for discharge, rendering exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 inappropriate and refused the prayer.
What did the court decide?
Application for quashing refused. Applicant directed to file a discharge application under Section 245(2).
What the court decided
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21104 of 2019
Applicant :- Satveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
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 order dated 06.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Saharanpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 06 of 2019 (Satveer v. State of U.P. and others) and the summoning order dated 10.10.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Saharanpur, in Complaint Case No. 118 of 2019 (Rajesh v. Satveer). Vide order dated 06.04.2019, the application for condonation of delay in filing revision against the order dated 10.10.2017 was rejected. Vide order dated 10.10.2017, the applicant was summoned for the offence under Section 406 of I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that as per allegation made in the complaint, opposite party no. 2 Rajesh had deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- in the account of the applicant Satveer in lieu of advance money for execution of sale deed by Satveer in favour of Rajesh. The advance money received by the applicant was not returned to opposite party no. 2 Rajesh. Accordingly, as per version of the allegation made in the complaint, no offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. is made out. This is purely a dispute of civil nature, for which criminal proceeding have been initiated, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to quash the summoning order and the order regarding condonation of delay given the civil nature of the underlying dispute.
Whether an alternate remedy under Section 245(2) for discharge renders it inappropriate for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Satveer
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/21104/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court