Dismissed

Shahzad Khan v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2019CRLR/2782/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the revision filed against an order summoning accused persons for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The High Court found no error in the Sessions Court's view that the impugned summoning order suffered from infirmities and illegality.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed upholding the order of the Sessions Court which quashed the summoning order.

Shahzad Khan Vs State of U.P. and Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2782 of 2004

¶3

Revisionist :- Shahzad Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- M.A. Qadeer,Rajesh Kumar Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,K K Dwivedi,R P Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Shri Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A are present. None present even in the revised list from the side of opposite party no. 2 and 3.

¶6

Heard on criminal revision.

¶7

From the perusal of the impugned order dated 26.10.2002 by which summoning order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 38, Agra in crime no. 79 of 2002, F.R 25 of 2002 has been rejected and opposite parties no. 2 and 3 were summoned for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C against which the revision numbered as 493 of 2002 was filed before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has allowed the revision and the impugned summoning order was set aside. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, this revision has been filed.

¶8

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that F.I.R was lodged against the opposite parties and after police investigation, final report was submitted. That final report was contested by the revisionist and the revisionist filed protest petition and on the basis of protest petition and finding sufficient material in the case diary, the learned trial court had summoned the opposite parties. Version of the revisionist was that on the date of incident when the complainant revisionist went to start construction on his purchased plot, the opposite parties threatened and committed marpeet with him and his wife. On his application, the City Magistrate directed for taking action, where upon both the opposite parties misguided the police by saying that they were the owner of the said plot and they showed a notary agreement dated 09.12.1982, on the basis of which they claimed to be the title holder. Alleging the said agreement to be forged and obtained by way of cheating the said F.I.R was lodged.

¶9

From the perusal of the impugned judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that the learned revisional

¶10

court found that there was no such agreement to sale in favour of the opposite parties and the agreement to sale on the basis of which the whole proceedings was initiated was neither in original nor the same was registered. The opposite parties on the other hand refused with regards to existence of any such agreement to sale.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel is that it is not disputed that the said agreement to sale was simply notarized and was not registered. The learned revisional court also found by the perusal of the case diary that on the disputed plot the revisionist were in possession. Therefore, it was rightly concluded by the revisional court that on the basis of the case diary when the learned Magistrate was summoning the opposite parties, he should have given cogent reason to disbelieve what was stated in the case diary, on the basis of which final report was given. There was no evidence on record contradicting the investigation and what was contained in the case diary. Therefore, the revisional court found that the order of the learned Magistrate seriously suffered from infirmities and there was material irregularity and illegality in it.

¶12

In view of the above, I do not find any error in the view taken by the revisional court nor there is any material irregularity or illegality nor any jurisdictional error is there.

¶13

In view of above, the revision lacks merit. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.12.2019 PS

Shahzad Khan v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahzad Khan v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Prempal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P.and Others

Shree Krishna Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nand Lal and Others Vs State of U.P.

Tanveer Saleem Vs State of U.P. and Others

Bharat Pal and Others Vs State of U.P.