Dismissed

Patalu Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2020A482/1286/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Uttar Pradesh High Court dismissed Section 482 CrPC application seeking quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order in a cheating and forgery case, noting prior High Court refusal to quash the FIR and presence of sufficient grounds for accusation.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order dismissed as it is of no merit.

Patalu Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1286 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Patalu Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Patalu Dubey with a prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet no. 02 of 2019, dated 13.04.2019 along with cognizance taking order dated 07.06.2019, passed by court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli, in Criminal Case No. 6036 of 2018 (State Vs. Patalu Dubey), arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli, pending before court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant argued that accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely charge sheeted in above case crime number. Neither he is beneficiary nor signatory nor having any mention in first information report or statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as of complainant, but charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken. Hence, this application with above prayer.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application with this contention that in statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., filed at page no. 32 of paper book, name of accusedapplicant is there and fabrication and manufacturing of forged and fictitious document has been assigned against him.

¶9

From the very perusal of order of Division Bench of this Court dated 30.01.2019, passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 82 of 2019; Sunil Dubey and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, it is apparent that same contention was raised by applicant, who was petitioner no. 2 in above proceeding before this Court, and a prayer for quashing of first information report dated 10.06.2018 of Case Crime No. 176 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli, was made, and Division Bench of this Court refused above relief with mention that it cannot be said that there was no ground for accusation of present

¶10

applicant. Meaning thereby, till above stage, it was held that there is ground for accusation and at present charge sheet has been filed, wherein cognizance has been taken. The informant is Kharpattu, who got this case lodged against person, who was beneficiary of alleged forged and fictitious deed with two witnesses of that deed. The above deed was executed under connivance of Sub Registrar by forged and fictitious persons, having forged and fictitious photo of Kharpattu pasted over it. Meaning thereby, Kharpattu was not aware of the facts except for lodging a criminal proceeding for above offence, wherein his land was got transferred by forged and fictitious act. Thereafter, investigation proceeded. The other person, who was involved in this registration, was interrogated, then it came to notice that present applicant with others did this fraud and got this deed executed.

¶11

Hence, under above facts and circumstances, this application is of no merit. The application is dismissed as such.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.1.2020 NS

Patalu Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patalu Dubey 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

Km. Anamika Sharma Vs State of Up and Another

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jyoti Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aibad Ulla and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Saran Das Vs State of Up and Another

Sukhvanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another