Dismissed

Yashpal Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2022A482/17209/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for alleged embezzlement of wheat. The court held the allegation of embezzlement was not discharged by another party covering the deficiency and refused to conduct an inquiry into facts already set forth in the FIR after a charge-sheet was filed.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashal of charge-sheet, cognizance, and summoning order dismissed.

Yashpal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17209 of 2021 Applicant :- Yashpal Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamalesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶3

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the Stare are present.

¶4

Learned counsel for the applicant presses the bail application of the applicant but his bail application has not been sent by the office.

¶5

At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, bail application of the applicant be detached from this application.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court with prayer to quash the entire proceeding and charge-sheet dated 19.12.2019 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 19.3.2020 in case no. 581 of 2020, State Vs. Yashpal Gupta, arising out of case crime no. 314 of 2019, under sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 25.6.2019, the opp. party no. 2 and others at the point of country made pistol kidnapped him and after assaulting they extended threat for his life and obtained signatures on some blank papers. The first information report could not be lodged and after that on 12.8.2019 when he was going somewhere along with his daughter, Dhara Singh and two unknown persons tried to kidnap him along with his daughter. They could hardly save themselves and regarding these two incidents, he lodged the first information report on 25.9.2019 at case crime no. 397 of 2019. In retaliation to that F.I.R., the present first information report in case crime no. 341 of 2019 has been registered. The allegation of embezzlement of wheat by him is completely false. As per document appended at page 34 of the paper book the deficiency of wheat was made good by the father of the opp. party no. 2. If the same was embezzled by the applicant, there was no occasion to make the same good by the father of the opp. party no. 2. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been produced regarding the purchase and deposition of wheat by the opp. party no. 2. The weight of alleged deficiency of wheat claimed is also different at every stage. The allegation against him is totally false. This F.I.R. can be said to be a counterblast of the first information report lodged by the applicant in case crime no. 397 of 2019. It is also claimed that this first information report has been registered after 14 days when the deficiency of the wheat was discovered by the opp.party no. 2, hence, the prayer is made to quash the entire proceeding and charge-sheet filed against him.

¶9

The first information report lodged by the opp. party no. 2 as case crime no. 0314 of 2019 dated 10.8.2019 cannot be said to be lodged in retaliation of the first information report lodged by the applicant. It has also been claimed that there is factual dispute which cannot be adjudicated by this court when charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken thereon.

¶10

It is also claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant that when the deficiency has been made good, then no offence against the applicant can be said to be made out, hence, the relief be granted as prayed.

¶11

From the perusal of the first information report, it is found that the opp. party no. 2 was the In-charge of wheat purchase centre while, the applicant was a contractor therein and the labour / staff was appointed by the contractor. In this centre 168.50 quintal of wheat was found deficit and it is alleged that this wheat was embezzled by the present applicant who was contractor therein. In the first information report itself it is mentioned that the applicant is agreed to pay the amount Rs. 2,15,000/- regarding this deficiency but later on the applicant and his wife filed a false suit against the opp. party no. 2.

¶12

It is true that as per the opp. party no. 2, this deficiency of the wheat was made good by adding wheat which was purchased by the father of the opp. party no. 2. As to save his skin the opp. party no. 2 made the deficiency of wheat good, so it cannot be said that the applicant is now discharged from his liability of embezzlement. Moreover, the first information report is said to have been filed by the applicant. In my opinion, the allegation is of embezzlement of wheat which is not made good by the applicant and this court is not under obligation to embark upon an inquiry regarding the facts mentioned in the first information report. As after investigation the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant have no force. The application is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

The present application is dismissed accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.2.2022/Gss

¶15

Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.02.25 10:12:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yashpal Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashpal Gupta 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nakul and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subham Shukla and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muniram Thekedar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Utkarsh Arya Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sri Nivas and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another