Dismissed

Haidar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2022A482/15931/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge refused to quash charge sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cheating/forgery case. Court observed disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Directs no coercive measures for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail considered if applicants surrender within 30 days; no coercive measures for 30 days.

Haidar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15931 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Haidar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 25.10.2019, cognizance order dated 26.10.2019 in Case Crime No. 164 of 2019, under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor as well as to stay the entire proceedings Case Crime No. 164 of 2019, under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor along with charge sheet dated 25.10.2019 and cognizance order dated 26.10.2019.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the first information report was lodged at the instance of informantChatarpal Singh, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., against Musaf Ali @ Babu, Haidar and Rizwan, with allegation that he met with accused Musaf Ali @ Babu in an Ashram where he told him that he is engaged in a business of wood and three firms are operating in his name as well as in the name of his sons. Accused Musaf Ali asked the informant to invest Rs.25 lacs in his business if he wants to yield profit. Initially the informant gave Rs.9 lacs to accused Musaf Ali and his two sons Haidar and Rizwan in cash at their home and thereafter 24 lacs were transferred in the bank accounts of the accused persons through bank transactions and in this way the accused applicants have cheated the informant with Rs.33 lacs without giving any profit and even the money was not returned back.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first information report was lodged with concocted story. Even the sections of forgery i.e. Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. were not found to be made out during investigation and for these sections chargesheet has not been filed. The applicants have committed no offences as mentioned in FIR. The applicants were framed in the present case due to ulterior motive. Informant had taken wood from the applicants and if the money has been paid to

¶10

applicants, the same was in connection with commercial transaction between the applicants and informant. They have not cheated informant in any manner.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. submitted that as per the FIR version and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the accusedapplicants have cheated the informant by duping Rs.33 lacs.

¶12

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶13

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶14

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2021 (10) SCC 773 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others MANU/SC/0851/2022.

¶15

For a period of 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 15.9.2022 Kamarjahan

¶18

Digitally signed by KAMARJAHAN ANSARI Date: 2022.09.16 13:17:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haidar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haidar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Yadav @ Krishna Murari Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajida Parveen @ Soni Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Priyanka Vs State of U.P and 9 Others

Krishna @ Rinku and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu Soni and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another