Dismissed

Smt. Draupadi Sharma and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2019A482/6653/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash FIR, charge sheet, and proceedings regarding alleged forged cheque signatures under Section 482 CrPC as disputed facts warrant trial posture. It stayed coercive action for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action stayed for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail; otherwise, action may be taken.

Smt. Draupadi Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6653 of 2005

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Draupadi Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Gupta,Dileep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 191 of 2003 dated 31.12.2003 arising out of case crime no. 161 of 2003 Police Station -Lanka, District- Varanasi and also the orders taking cognizance of the said charge sheet and issuing process through summons and further to quash entire proceedings of case No. 180 of 2004 pending before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, under Section 419/420 I.P.C.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that there was no forged signature of the cheque, and therefore, the applicants have falsely been implicated in the case of forged signatures.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it appears prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. Charge sheet against the applicants has been submitted after proper appreciation of the documentary evidence.

¶9

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶10

Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge

¶11

application before the Trial Court.

¶12

It has also been ordered that if any such application for verifying the forged signature by the handwriting expert is filed by the applicants, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by the court below.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the proceedings, charge sheet and orders is refused.

¶14

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided, if possible on the same day, in view of the settled law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.2.2019

¶17

A. Pt. Singh

Smt. Draupadi Sharma and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Draupadi Sharma and Another v. State of U.P.

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

Bhanu Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Others

Satyavir Vs State of U.P.

Arshad Ali Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bishambhar Nath Tewari Vs State of U.P.

Rahmat Uttah Vs Mohd. Bakridi and Another