Dismissed

Virendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023A482/40597/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court refused to quash criminal proceedings for alleged cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC). The court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence and disputed questions of fact could not be considered at this stage under precedents like Bhajan Lal.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings refused. Bail application consideration deferred to lower court within three weeks.

Virendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40597 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 201/2020 dated 15.6.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 21.10.2020 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 1760 of 2020 (State vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 238 of 2019, under Section 420. 406 IPC, P.S. Fatehganj West, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Bareilly.

¶7

As per the allegation made in the first information report, it is alleged that applicants had taken loan of Rs. 4 lakh, however on being unable to pay the said amount, the property was seized and put for auction and an amount of Rs. 1,11,5356/- was recovered and the balance amount remained due. It is alleged that in collusion with the Bank Manager, the applicants had produced no dues certificate, consequent to which, the first information report has been lodged. The police after concluding the investigation, has submitted charge sheet, on which the Magistrate has taken cognizance.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment, as such, the entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, the entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses and material collected during the course of investigation prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the applicants.

¶11

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings is refused.

¶12

However, in case the applicants appear before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application be considered and disposed of in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 after hearing the parties.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 KU

¶15

Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar Sharma and Another 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

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

Mohammad Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Hasan @ Sanu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Omwati and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sagar Ojha and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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