Dismissed

Vivek Taliwal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2020A482/13276/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 application, the High Court examined a request to quash criminal proceedings regarding cheating, criminal intimidation, and gambling. The court held that the FIR allegations were clear and the investigation yielded evidence, finding no infirmity in the trial court's cognizance. Consequently, the supervisory jurisdiction was not invoked, and the application was rejected as not f

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 CrPC was rejected.

Vivek Taliwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13276 of 2020 Applicant :- Vivek Taliwal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶5

By means of the present application under Section 482, the applicants herein seek for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 2380 of 2019 (State vs. Vivek Taliwal) arising out of Case Crime No.154 of 2019 under Section 420 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act 1867 in P.S.- Kotwali Hathras, District- Hathras which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued for quashing of the entire proceeding being fully false/baseless and lacking of evidence collected during the course of investigation.

¶7

Submission is that the allegation in the first information report in no way can implicate the applicants in the gambling or any other activities.

¶8

The applicants herein have also lodged two complaints; one in the month of August, 2019 and another in the month of September, 2019 against the first informant. Several others have also lodged the complaints against the first informant.

¶9

Be that as it may, the allegations in the first information report are clear and categorical and also give the description of transaction with the bank account number of the person concerned. Further, the allegations are that the accused persons are also threatening the first informant and his family members.

¶10

In the light of the allegations made in the first information report and the fact that the investigation was concluded with collection of evidence, it cannot be said that the cognizance taken by the Trial Court for the offences, is without application of mind.

¶11

As far as the complicity of the applicants in the criminal case is concerned, it can only be ascertained after appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution.

¶12

This Court does not find it a fit case for invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Section 482, inasmuch as, no infirmity could be found in the action taken by the competent Court.

¶13

The present 482 application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶14

Order Date :- 7.9.2020/P Kesari

Vivek Taliwal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Taliwal and Another 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

Dilwar @ Dilawar Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Aka Karmveer Aka Dharmveer and Another Vs State of U.P.

Farhan Vs State of U.P.

Navijan @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Nasreen Jahan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babita Vs State of U.P. and Another