Dismissed

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2019A482/21670/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash summoning and warrant orders in a cheating case. The Court refused the prayer, directing the applicant to approach the trial court for discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC and prohibiting coercive measures pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order and proceedings refused; applicant directed to discharge application under Section 245(2) CrPC; coercive measures stayed.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21670 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ramesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Govil 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 applicant with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 09.01.2017 and the order dated 26.03.2019, issuing nonbailable warrant and process under Section 82 of Code, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Mathura as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 33 of 2013 (Ram Prakash v. Ramesh), under Section 406 of I.P.C., Police Station - Farah, District - Mathura.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that in this case, opposite party no. 2 Ram Prakash had lodged an F.I.R., in which, after investigation, the police submitted final report against the applicant. On the protest petition filed by opposite party no. 2, the applicant has been summoned for the offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. As per version of the F.I.R., opposite party no. 2 Ram Prakash had paid advance money of Rs. 2.5 lakhs for purchase of the land of the applicant. Later on, the applicant neither executed sale deed nor returned the money to opposite party no. 2. Accordingly, offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. is not 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 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 summoning order as well as the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶11

Accordingly, it is directed that in case the applicant files an application under Section 245(2) of the Code for discharge through counsel within 60 days from today, the same shall be decided by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 30.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Baghel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ranjana Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umashankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nandu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hardeo and 8 Others Vs State of Up and Another