The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of an order that rejected an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C regarding alleged file forgery.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24529 of 2019
Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 31.1.2019 passed by Additional District Judge/FTC Court No.2, Fatehpur in Misc. Case NO. 8 of 2015 (Mamta Devi vs. Amit Kumar) under section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur whereby the court below rejected the application 3A under section 340 Cr.P.C. with a further prayer to direct the concerned court below to initiate the proceedings of foregery.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the trial court has passed the impugned order dated 31.1.2019 erroneously whereby the application of the applicant 3Aa under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been wrongly dismissed. By the said application, a prayer was made that a case be directed to be registered against the opposite party nos 2 to 5 for making cuttings in the file without permission of the Court.
It is further argued that the finding given by the trial court in this regard is perverse because in objection dated 16.3.2018 which is at page-24 filed against the said application 3Aa by Smt. Mamta Devi, opposite party no. 2, she has made admission in paragraph no. 7 that child who was in womb of the opposite party no. 2 died, was written by mistake.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order.
I have gone through the impugned order. The trial court has given clear finding that no cutting was found to have been made by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 nor any application was made with regard to the said fact by the clerk concerned. Moreover, it is also mentioned in the said order that the said point has been raised by the applicant one year after filing of the written statement and accordingly the application has been dismissed.
I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The application us/ 482 deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.7.2019
AU
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash the impugned order dismissing the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C for failure to register a forgery case.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Kumar
State Of U.P.
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
