In an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for cheating, the applicant waived the relief as ingredients were missing. The court did not entertain the prayers and dismissed the application.
Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; prayers not entertained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11536 of 2021 Applicant :- Sohan Lal Malhotra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sufia Saba
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 13.01.2020 along with cognizance order dated 13.02.2020 and N.B.W. dated 10.03.2021 passed by Special C.J.M II Kanpur Nagar as well as proceeding of Case No. 7015 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs Sohan Lal Malhotra) under section 420 I.P.C. at P.S. Bazariya District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Kanpur Nagar.
Counsel for the applicant after making submissions to some extent does not dispute the fact that the necessary ingredients for invocation of section 482 Cr.P.C. are not made out in the facts of the case and accordingly, he does not wish to press the relief as prayed for in the application. The prayers in the application are accordingly not entertained.
Counsel for the applicants states that the applicant would submit to the jurisdiction of the court below and seek recall of the non-bailable warrant issued on 10.3.2021.
Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the applicant.
Needless to say that in case any such application is moved by the applicant, the court below would be expected to dispose of the same in accordance with the settled principles of law.
Subject to aforesaid observation, the application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2021 Kirti
(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashal of charge sheet and cognizance order should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sohan Lal Malhotra
Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
