Dismissed

Bablu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2022A482/22506/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings for alleged misappropriation of funds. Court distinguished reliance on Apex Court law regarding return of debt as inapplicable. Application refused; subsequent bail directions framed to allow surrender and bail application within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused. Direction given to apply for bail within three weeks of surrender if charged.

Bablu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22506 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Bablu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balbeer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is moved by the applicants for quashing the charge-sheet no. 667 of 2020 dated 19.09.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 544 of 2020 (State vs. Bablu & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 2020, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Etmaddaula, District- Agra, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M.-VII, Agra as well as the cognizance order dated 02.01.2021.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as per the first information report it is alleged that opposite party no.2 has given Rs.50,000/- in cash and two cheques of Rs.1 lakh each to the accused-applicants in presence of his father Kadeer regarding purchase of a house. Later on, the accused-applicants have neither sold the house nor returned the amount to opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the instant case relates to breach of contract, therefore, criminal case is not maintainable. He has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and another [reported in 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 337 ] .

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the application and submitted that applicants had taken the amount for selling the house but they have misappropriated the amount and have not sold the house to opposite party no.2, therefore, the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants.

¶9

I have gone through the record. In the F.I.R. it is stated that two cheques of Rs.1 lakh each and Rs.50,000/- in cash were given to the applicants in lieu of consideration of house which was to be sold by the applicants but they have neither returned the amount nor executed the sale deed regarding house. This case cannot be treated as return of debt and the law laid down in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah (supra) is not applicable in this

¶10

case.

¶11

From the perusal of record, first information report, prima facie , offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant, therefore, I do not find any substance in the present application.

¶12

Therefore, the prayer for quashing of proceedings as well as charge-sheet and cognizance order is, hereby, refused.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has not pressed the relief as sought by means of this application and prayed to issue appropriate direction to the concerned Courts below to decide the bail application of the applicants in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 .

¶14

However, it is provided that in case the accused-applicants surrender before the court below and move bail application within a period of three weeks from today, the court below shall consider and decide the bail application according to the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶15

For a period of three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶16

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 6.4.2022 Vikas

¶18

Digitally signed by VIKAS VERMA Date: 2022.04.06 17:09:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bablu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu and 2 Others 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

Neha Rai Vs State of U.P.and Another

Raj Narayan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Anara Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashif Iqbal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Pratap Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ankur Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Another