Dismissed

Ahmad Raja Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2022A482/5552/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of charge sheet and proceedings arising from an FIR alleging cheating. Court found prima facie offence based on allegations of receiving money under false pretence of selling a plot. Defense regarding brick kiln business unrelated to judicial inquiry held inapplicable at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of charge sheet, cognizance order and entire proceedings rejected and dismissed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5552 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ahmad Raja Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of the present application the applicant has made a prayer to quash the charge sheet no.67 of 2019 dated 18.1.2019, cognizance order dated 19.8.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.4299 of 2019 (State Vs. Ahmad Raja Khan) arising out of Case Crime No.688 of 2018, under Sections 420, 504, 506 452 and 323 IPC, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, III, Rampur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant is brother-in-law (Bahnoi of opposite party no.2) and he is in the business of brick-kiln and as opposite party no.2 has taken the bricks from him for the purposes to construct her house and only due to this reason she transferred money in the account of applicant but in between a dispute arose between the applicant and opposite party no.2 and a false application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party no.2 and on that application on the direction of the learned Magistrate FIR of the present cae was lodged.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant never committed any

¶9

cheating and he never took any money from opposite party no.2 under the pretext to sell a plot to her, as alleged in the FIR of the present case and without any proper investigation charge sheet in the present case was submitted and, therefore, impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he received huge amount of money from opposite party no.2, who is lady, under the pretext to sell plot to her and as prima facie offence under Sections 420, 504. 506, 452 and 323 IPC is made out against applicant therefore, charge sheet has rightly been submitted and there is no illegality in the impugned charge sheet and the present application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

The FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant on the direction given by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. From a perusal of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and as well as FIR of the present case, it reflects that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he received huge amount of cash and as well as Rs.3.50,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Fifty Thousand) was received by him in his account from the account of opposite party no.2 under the pretext to sell a plot which he alleged that it belonged to him but later on, it revealed that the plot in subject never belonged to him and when opposite party no.2 demanded back her money from applicant then applicant flatly refused to refund the same. Therefore, prima faice from perusal of FIR and the documents on record,

¶13

offence under Sections 420, 504, 506, 452 and 323 IPC is made out against the applicant and his intention of cheating was apparent since beginning.

¶14

As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that he is in the business of brick kiln and the money was transferred in his account for the purposes of buying bricks is concerned, it is a defence which cannot be appreciated at this stage. As prima facie cognizable offence against applicant is made out, therefore, the present application is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.7.2022 SKM

¶16

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.04 18:41:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ahmad Raja Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmad Raja Khan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Gupta @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Mugeesudeen @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Singh @ Pinku and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Gangadhar Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another