Dismissed

Tipu Sultan v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2019A482/22013/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for cheating, alleging false implication. The court held that disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage and prima facie offence is made out.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings rejected. Bail application to be considered if applicant surrenders within 30 days; no coercive action for that period.

Tipu Sultan Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22013 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Tipu Sultan Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, 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 entire proceedings of Case No.1770 of 2012 (State Vs. Tipu Sultan), arsing out of Case Crime No.190 of 2012, under Sections 419, 420 IPC, P.S. Ghughli, District Maharajganj pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj 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 applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2 because the amount which has been charged by him from the opposite party no.2 was for arranging work in Oman for which Visa was provided to him. Opposite party no.2 had gone to the said place but thereafter he has slapped this false case against applicant. Contents of FIR do not indicate that any cheating has been committed by accused-applicant.

¶8

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

¶9

I have gone through the contents of FIR. According to the FIR an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is said to have been taken by the accused-applicant from opposite party no.2 for a work of mate but after going to Oman he was not provided the said job rather was provided work of a mason and hence, he came back. In pursuance of the FIR, the investigation have been completed and charge-sheet have been submitted against the accused-applicant. The witnesses recorded by the I.O. cannot be scrutinized in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

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 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.

¶11

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

¶12

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from

¶13

today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶14

With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.7.2019 Neeraj

Tipu Sultan v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tipu Sultan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Bashir Vs State of Up and Another

Zafroon and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheetal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Pinki Malhotra and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another