Gulzar Singh v. State of U.P and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for cheating, holding that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated and a right to discharge exists under Cr.P.C. Directions were issued for bail consideration upon surrender.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for quashing refused. Bail application to be considered expeditiously if applicant surrenders within 30 days. No coercive action during this period.
What the court decided
Court No. - 17.. .
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4890 of 2005
Applicant :- Gulzar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- K.K. Arora Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Jagram Singh,Ravi Singh Parihar
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Today the case has been listed peremptorily and Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the applicant has sent illness slip.
List revised none is present for the applicant.
Heard learned A.G.A. and Sri Jagram Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party at length.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the further proceedings of case no. 5085 of 2002 (M/s. Vikrant Tyres Vs. Rama Krishna Transport and others) pending in the court of 3rd Judicial Magistrate, Meerut for an offence under Section 420, 406 I.P.C.
The brief facts of the case is that on 2.2.2000 the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case no. 87/2000 in the court no. of 3rd Judicial Magistrate, Meerut with the averment that on 13.8.1998 he had handed over certain tyres to the accused persons, who are the transporters at Meerut for delivery of the consignment to the accused nos. 3 and 4 named in the complaint through its bilti instructions to give goods as well as he will deposit the whole cost of goods in State Bank of India, Dehradun. However, in breach of the aforesaid instructions the goods were delivered to the co-accused respondent nos. 3 and 4 thereby the complainant has been cheated and defrauded to the opposite party hence an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. has been committed and therefore, a complaint has been filed after the statements of Sri Nand Lal Gupta, Sri Manoj Gupta and Sri Mukutacharya were recorded. After the recording of statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. summoning order dated was passed in the present case.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings on grounds of no clear evidence of cheating is maintainable at this stage.
Whether disputed questions of fact and defence submissions can be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Gulzar Singh
Coram
Suresh Kumar Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/4890/2005
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court