Dismissed

Rajveer v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2019A482/35763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery. The High Court observed that a prima facie case existed and refused to quash the proceedings. However, the applicant was granted a 30-day stay against coercive action and directed that bail prayers would be considered if he surrendered within that period.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; coercive action stayed for 30 days if applicant surrenders; bail prayer to be considered thereafter.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35763 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajveer Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the name of O.P. No. 2.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 8108 of 2015 (Rajveer Vs. Rajveer and others) under section 419, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Patiyali, District Kasganj pending in the court of C.J.M. Kasganj and summoning order dated 4.5.2017 passed by C.J.M. Kasganj.

¶8

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that O.P. No. 2 has filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed which is still pending. The O.P. No. 2 is not the owner of alleged property and he does not belong to village Kheda Majra Kadarganj. In fact the alleged property belongs to the father of applicant, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the O.P. No. 2 is the owner of disputed land. He had not executed the sale deed. The applicant had executed sale deed of alleged land in favour of one Suraj Pal. When this fact came into knowledge of O.P. No. 2 he filed this complaint and the learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicant to face trial under section 419, 468, 471 IPC. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order dated 4.5.2017 and there is no ground to quash the proceeding of the aforementioned case.

¶10

A perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In complaint the O.P. No. 2 has claimed himself to be the owner of the alleged property and he has stated that he had

¶11

not executed any sale deed. The applicant had executed the sale deed of the land of O.P. No. 2 in favour of one Suraj Pal. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicant to face trial under section 419, 468, 471 IPC. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. The learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case including summoning order dated 4.5.2017, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement 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 the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.10.2019 Masarrat

Rajveer v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer 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

Gangesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Ram Kishan and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Pramod Kumar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Om Prakash and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Singh and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Anr.

Smt. Ekta Srivastava Adn 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.