Dismissed

Sunil Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2019A482/9751/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery, the High Court held that prima facie evidence exists to support the summoning order. The petition was dismissed with liberty to move for bail within four weeks, during which no coercive action could be taken.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashment refused; liberty to move for bail within four weeks; no coercive action for four weeks.

Sunil Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9751 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Singh And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought quashment of the proceeding in Complaint Case No.2967 of 2013 (Ramanand Vs. Sunil and others), under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj and summoning order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj.

¶7

Contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that the allegations made in the complaint and statement are mischievous and the court below has failed to appreciate the proper facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly, summoned the applicants under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The summoning order is illegal and not sustainable and entire proceeding is in abuse of process of the Court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashment of the summoning order and submitted that the summoning order is just and legal which requires no interference by this Court.

¶9

Perusal of the record itself reflects that at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie evidence is lacking for summoning the applicant under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

¶10

Considered the above submissions and the contents disclosed in the complaint. No good ground is made out for quashment of the impugned summoning order. Accordingly, the prayer for quashment of the impugned proceeding and the summoning order is refused.

¶11

However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the applicants within four

¶12

weeks from today move application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the court below, expeditiously, if convenient, on the same day.

¶13

For a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

It is made clear that in the event no such application is moved within the time prescribed above, this order will be of no avail to the applicants.

¶15

With the above direction, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.5.2019

¶17

PKC

Sunil Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Singh and 2 Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indra Prasad Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rama Kant Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Das and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Seema and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alokmani Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another