Disposed

Hari Prasad Budhia and Another v. State of U.P. and Andther

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2020A482/242/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summons order in a criminal breach of trust case, finding that factual disputes must be settled by the trial court. However, it directed that bail would be considered if applicants surrendered within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed application; bail to be considered if applicants surrender within 30 days; 30-day stay on coercive action subject to appearance.

Hari Prasad Budhia and Another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 242 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Hari Prasad Budhia And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Andther Counsel for Applicant :- Vashishtha Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Sri R.P. Mishra, Advocate, appeared and filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2, taken on record.

¶6

The applicants namely, Hari Prasad Budhia and Sanjay, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 12.11.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4375 of 2019, (Vishal vs. Hari Prasad Budhia and another), under Sections- 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Mathura, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Mathura.

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that no such money was ever paid nor any criminal breach of trust was ever occurred nor there is any documentary proof of above money was there nor it was ever given. No complaint was got lodged till father was alive. After death of father, this false and concocted story was developed, wherein, this complaint has been filed and impugned summoning, under abuse of process of law, is there. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.

¶10

From the very perusal of complaint, it is apparent that it was filed by Vishal, against his paternal uncle (fufa) and his son, with this contention that both of opposite parties were residing at Gujrat, where, complainant's brother was under business. They asked for Rs. 10 lacs for giving it to complainant's father. Father ensured it through telephonic call. Father expressed his need. Hence, this money was entrusted to opposite parties, with a hope to getting the same delivered to his father. But neither it was given to his father nor returned to complainant and when

¶11

asked, it has been admitted to be spent to his own need, with an assurance for getting it paid back. Subsequently, it was refused and when demanded back, after death of his father, assault with threat and abuse was there. This fact was very well there in the statement recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. There is corroboration of above narration and on the basis of it, impugned summoning order, by application of judicial mind is there.

¶12

This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make analytical analysis of factual aspects of the case, as the same is the question before trial court. Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal.

¶13

Dismissed , accordingly.

¶14

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty (30) days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶15

For a period of thirty (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.

¶16

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below, within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.1.2020 Kamarjahan

Hari Prasad Budhia and Another v. State of U.P. and Andther

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Prasad Budhia and Another v. State of U.P. and Andther

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

Umesh Yadav and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rita Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veerpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pragati Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Andther

Rajani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others