Allowed

Gopal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2019A482/25109/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR, complaints, and warrant orders against applicant. Offence of cheating (Section 420 IPC) not attracted due to lack of mens rea as applicant was only a marginal witness in registered sale agreement.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings of complaint case, summoning order dated 12.8.2013, and non-bailable warrant order dated 16.7.2016 against applicant.

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25109 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Gopal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

List revised. None present for the opposite party no.2.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 488 of 2013 under Sections 420 IPC, Police Station Maduadeeh, District - Varanasi pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Varanasi as well as summoning order dated 12.8.2013 and non-bailable warrant order dated 16.7.2016 passed by the court concerned. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that summoning order passed against the applicant is illegal. Applicant is only marginal witness in the said agreement. Offence under Section 420 IPC is not attracted against him. At this stage, learned counsel has referred to annexures no.1, 3 & 4 of the application and argued that if the entire allegations levelled in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as well as in the statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. are taken into consideration, then also co-accused Kailash was responsible for the aforesaid offence. Being a marginal witness, applicant cannot be prosecuted in this matter. Mens rea to attract the offence under section 420 IPC is also not available in this case. At this juncture, learned counsel has referred to the ingredients of the offence under section 420 IPC and submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint against the applicant is an abuse of process of law. Thus, prayer has been made to allow the application and and quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order.

¶11

In this matter, as is evident from record, allegation against the applicant is that he was the marginal witness of the said agreement to sale, which is a registered document. Nothing is on record to show the mens rea of the applicant to commit the offence under section 420 IPC. What specific role was played by the applicant to attract the offence punishable under section 420 IPC has also not been mentioned in the complaint. A general role has been assigned against the applicant. Since applicant is only a marginal witness of the said agreement entered into between the opposite party no.2 and the complainant, no mens rea to attract the offence of cheating is available against the applicant and the applicant's case is squarely covered with the law laid down in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , thus, prayer made in the application having some substance is liable to be allowed. It is also clarified that offence of cheating will be attracted against the co-accused, who has executed the said agreement.

¶12

Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the grounds taken in the affidavit, present application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

¶13

Entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case against the applicant are quashed.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.8.2019 / ss

Gopal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Singh 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

Shivraj and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhirendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manish @ Neetu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheo Prasad Singh and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Mujammil and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrabhan Singh and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another