Dismissed

Akil v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2020A482/47677/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding a fraud complaint, stating inherent power does not allow commenting on facts within trial court's jurisdiction. However, the applicant was granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant allowed 30 days to surrender for bail consideration without coercive action.

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47677 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Akil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Pandey 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

The applicant, Akil, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 18341 of 2015 (Sheikhur Rahman Vs. Akil And Others) u/s 420, 465 IPC, Police Station- Mandi, District- Saharanpur as well as summoning order dated 09.06.2016.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that no specific date of alleged payment to Akil- applicant has been given in his statement recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The alleged payment is in the account of those who have not been summoned. There is contradiction in the statement, hence, this was abuse process of law. Hence, this proceeding with above prayer.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed.

¶9

From the very perusal of material placed on record, it appears that complaint was filed by Sheikhur Rahman, against the applicant and others with this contention that complainant a labour at the wood shop, where Akil, assured for a job for him at Aboard and upon this assurance he took money as well as passport. Thenafter on different dates he received money by way of depositing another's account but no job was available at Aboard for him, nor money was repaid. It was a fraud. This contention has been retreated in the statement recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., of complainant. Witnesses examined as P.W.-1 (Pravez) and P.W.-2 (Aazam), in their statements recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., have been corroborated the contention.

¶10

At the stage of summoning under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., Magistrate is not required to met malicious analysis, rather, a prima facie case for summoning is to be seen by way of application of judicial mind and in present case it was there in

¶11

existence, on the basis of which impugned summoning order has been passed.

¶12

This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to comment on factual matrix because the same is within the jurisdiction of trial court. Accordingly, this application merits, its dismissal.

¶13

Dismissed as such.

¶14

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within thirty (30) days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 applicant.

¶16

However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below, within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands dismissed accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.1.2020 S.K.

Akil v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Naurang Sahay and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Another

Vishambhar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Ragini and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Bachan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kiran Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another