Dismissed

Anurag Gupta v. State of U.P., Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024/6184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a revisional order that quashed a cognizance complaint. The revisional court held the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 406 IPC. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no reason for the gap between the money transaction in 2014 and the dispute in 2019.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Anurag Gupta Vs State of U.P., Thru. the Prin… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47648

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6184 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anurag Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P., Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-528 B.N.S.S. has been filed challenging the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No.16 of 2024 In re Jitendra Kumar Verma @ Jitendra Singh vs State of U.P. & Anr.

¶8

3. Admittedly, the money has been given by the petitioner herein to the respondent No.2 as per the complaint, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, in February, 2014. The dispute between the parties had arisen on 07.08.2019 when allegedly respondent No.2 failed to return back the money and also said to have abused the petitioner herein.

¶9

4. Upon the complaint being filed and learned court below having issued summons, the respondent No.2 had filed a Revision No.16 of 2024 In re Jitendra Kumar Verma @ Jitendra Singh vs State, which had been allowed by the learned revisional court vide order dated 16.05.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition on the ground that considering the limitation as prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and the offence being one of Section 406 IPC consequently the complaint itself has been filed beyond limitation.

¶10

5. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly when respondent No.2 refused to return back the money and abused him which was in the year 2019, the cause of action arose.

¶11

6. Perusal of the complaint vis à vis the summoning order as well as the order passed by the learned revisional court would indicate that no

¶12

reasons emerge as to why no complaint was filed between the period 2014 and 2019 by the petitioner which aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned revisional court while allowing the revision filed by the respondent No.2.

¶13

7. Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 15.7.2024

¶15

prateek

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anurag Gupta v. State of U.P., Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Gupta v. State of U.P., Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramharakh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and Another

Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ranjit Dwivedi (Ranjit Dubey in Complaint) and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Moolchandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bhallar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Under the Guardianship of Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another