Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. . and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023A482/22199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected application to quash criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 504, and 506. The court held that the dispute was factual and required evidence, so the court could not assume the applicant's documents were false. Prima facie, ingredients for an offence appeared to be made out.

What did the court decide?

The quashing application was dismissed; no coercive action to be taken for three weeks; applicant directed to appear for cancellation of NBW.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. . and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22199 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. . And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh,Shiv Prakash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sundeep Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and, Shri Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶6

Present application u/s 482 has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 22.9.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 14536 of 2021 (Ajay Kumar vs. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.), under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.5, Meerut.

¶7

Submission is, the vehicle is duly registered in the name of the present applicant. The loan to purchase the same was obtained by the applicant. Merely because there was an agreement between the parties allowing the opposite party no.2 use of the vehicle for business purpose, a completely false case has been set up with malafide intent. The general power of attorney was executed on a stamp paper bearing no. BE59150 first issued by the Treasury on 17.10.2016 two months after the date on which the general power of attorney is claimed to have been executed. Thus, it has been submitted, besides the civil dispute, the claim being made by opposite party no.2 is based on a false document.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 would contend, if the power of attorney claimed to have been executed on 16.08.2016 is ignored, there is another document written by both parties dated 16.08.2016 which clearly brings out the true intent of the parties as money was paid by opposite party no.2 in lieu of the bus owned by the opposite party no.2. In that context, it has been submitted, the criminal breach of trust has arisen upon the applicant having misappropriated the bus to the loss of opposite party no.2.

¶9

While such submissions have been advanced by learned counsel for parties, in the first place, dispute is factual as would require evidence to be led. Hence, no firm conclusion may be reached as to the genuineness or any other document relied upon by

¶10

either side. That exercise may not be made in the present proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Insofar as it is not possible to reach a conclusion that documents being relied upon by the applicant are patently false and fabricated, at present, it may be assumed being properly executed. In that light, keeping in mind the complaint allegations and the statements recorded by the learned court below, prima facie , ingredients do appear to be made out.

¶11

In view of the above, no interference is warranted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Last, it is noted, non-bailable warrants have been issued owing to failure to appear on certain dates. Accordingly, if the applicant shall appear before the learned court below within three weeks and apply for cancellation of NBW, the learned court below may cancel the NBW subject to compliance by the applicant.

¶13

For a period of three weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶14

Present application is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 Prakhar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. . and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar 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. Asha Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bal Govind Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mohammad Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mantasha Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naresh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another