Allowed

Shailendra Kumar Verma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022/3537/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery. The court found no evidence of coercion and noted a pending civil suit, deeming continued proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Impugned chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order, and all related proceedings under sections 419, 420, 406 I.P.C. were quashed.

Shailendra Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3537 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Verma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Nafees,Mukesh Singh,Ram Baran Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶6

Present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned Chargesheet dated 14-03-2021(Chargesheet No. 01/2021) arising out of Case Crime No. 538/2020, under sections 419,420,406 I.P.C., Police StationKaiserganj, district-Bahraich as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 23-02-2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Criminal Case No. 1941/2022, including the entire proceedings thereof so far as it relates to the petitioners.

¶7

In compliance of the order dated 07-06-2022, the petitioners and respondent no. 3, Nakched Prasad Verma,, grandfather of petitioner no. 1, are present in person in the court. They are duly identified by their respective counsels.

¶8

Respondent no. 3, executed a sale deed on 3107-2021 in respect of his land of Gata Nos. 157/0.4700, 95/0.0040, 27/0.0120 Hectare, 36 A/0.2430, 36Ba/0.8450, 44 Mi/0.085 Hecture, total area 1.659 Hectare in favour of petitioner no. 1. The second son of respondent no. 3, Harishchand filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that respondent no. 3 is 80 years of old man and the petitioners put undue pressure and got the sale deed registered in favour of petitioner no. 1.

¶9

It is further alleged that no sale consideration was given by the petitioners to respondent no. 3 and whole transaction was without there being any consideration. The Investigating Agency after investigating the matter filed impugned chargesheet.

¶10

It is also important to note that respondent no. 2, Harishchand filed a Civil Suit bearing no. 1023 of 2020 in the court of Civil Judge(J.D.), Kaiserganj, district-Bahraich for cancellation of the said sale deeds executed by respondent no. 3 in favour of petitioner no. 1.

¶11

Respondent no. 3, who is present in court submits that he has no grievance against the petitioners as the petitioners have paid the sale consideration to him through the bank transactions and he was not the part of the complaint/F.I.R. registered on the basis of the application filed by respondent no. 2 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He also submits that he is not a party to the suit filed by his son, Harishchand and he has been impleaded as defendant. He also said that proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. as well as suit are wholly illegal as it does not approve any action taken by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioners.

¶12

Considering the stand of respondent no. 3, who has categorically said that he has received the sale consideration in favour of petitioner no. 1 without there being any force or coercion, this court finds that respondent no. 3 is keeping good mental health to take a decision, the continuance of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners would be abuse of process of the court.

¶13

In view thereof, the present petition is allowed.

¶14

The impugned proceedings initiated in pursuance of impugned chargesheet dated 14-032021(Chargesheet No. 01/2021) arising out of Case Crime No. 538/2020, under sections 419,420,406 I.P.C., Police Station-Kaiserganj, district-Bahraich as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 23-02-2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Criminal Case No. 1941/2022, including the entire proceedings thereof so far as it relates to the petitioners, are quashed.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.8.2022 AKS

¶16

Digitally signed by ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.10 19:44:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shailendra Kumar Verma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar Verma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

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

Raman Kirpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Alias Joginder Bahra S/O Ram Chandra Alias Chander Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Kumar S/O Late Ramnath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Ajeet Shukla and Ors. Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Civil Sectt.and Ors.

Dr. Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home

Umesh Chandra Shukla and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.