Dismissed

Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022A482/6796/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order directing further investigation in a cheating case regarding a property sale, the High Court held that interference was not called for as the investigation was ongoing pursuant to the magistrate's order.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; accused to file legal remedy after filing of subsequent police report.

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6796 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sangam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Auraiya, by which directions were given for re-investigation in Case Crime No. 447 of 2017, under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Dibiapur, District Auraiya and to set aside the Final Report No.148 of 2017 dated 24.11.2020.

¶7

On perusal of record, it appears that an FIR was lodged in the case at the instance of the informant Arun Pratap Singh in Case Crime No. 447 of 2017, assailing the sale deed in favour of the accused-applicant with regard to disputed property. The police investigated the case and filed final report in favour of the applicant on the basis of perusal of documents and fact that a civil suit is pending with regard to disputed property and also on the basis of statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during investigation. A protest petition was filed by the informant on the said final report, supported with an affidavit. Learned Magistrate by impugned order directed for further investigation in the case and also set aside the final report dated 24.11.2020. Learned Magistrate observed that the Investigating Officer has not conducted any spot inspection and did not take necessary information from nearby people and has not gone into the documents filed by the informant.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. submitted that the learned Magistrate only directed for further investigation in the case and set aside the final report. Further investigation is supposed to be pending pursuant to impugned order, hence, no indulgence is required by this Court at this stage.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the Investigating Officer has stated in case diary that he has conducted spot inspection of plot No.2386, area 1.182 hectare, of which certain part is stated to have been purchased by the accused persons

¶10

through sale-deed without any authority or ownership of the vendor. The Investigating Officer has also stated that he has examined independent witnesses Dilip Kumar Sharma and Devendra Singh during investigation and their statements has been filed along with the application as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit.

¶11

However, the informant has said in his protest petition that he is not a party to the civil suit pending with regard to the disputed plot. Although some observations given in the impugned order on the basis of ground taken in protest petition, which are not substantiated with the material placed on record, as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant but this fact cannot be denied that by the impugned order, Magistrate has issued direction for further investigation in the case. Further investigation is progressing in pursuance of that order.

¶12

Under above facts and circumstances of the case, no interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is called for in the impugned order at this stage. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed with observation that after filing of police report, the accused applicant will be at liberty to file the legal remedy available to him under law.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.9.2022 Kamarjahan

¶14

Digitally signed by KAMARJAHAN ANSARI Date: 2022.09.16 17:43:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash 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

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

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

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

Rakesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rajnarayan @ Ramnarayan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ranjeet Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another