Dismissed

Satish Kumar v. State of Up and 5 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024A227/3634/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of a revision seeking to summon bank officers accused of cheque-related fraud. This Court held the revisional order correct, noting limited statutory jurisdiction to interfere absent a jurisdictional error, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order dated 10.01.2024 remains in force.

Satish Kumar vs State of Up and 5 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:167724

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3634 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anirudh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Present petition has been preferred with the following prayer:-

¶8

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure no. 8 to the petition) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision no. 226 of 2023, CNR no. UPSP01-005757-2023 (Satish Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others).

¶9

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Saharanpur to summon the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 as well as respondent nos. 5 & 6 to face the trial under sections 323, 324, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506 of IPC."

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was offered to purchase a plot by respondent nos. 2 to 4. In pursuance of the same, petitioner gave an amount of Rs.1000/- cash in presence of some witness and further two cheques amounting to Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by the petitioner to respondent no. 2. On dated 04.05.2018 the first cheque and on 26.09.2018 the second cheque was encashed but surprisingly on the same day i.e. on 26.09.2018 although amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was debited from the account of petitioner but the cheque amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- was wrongly shown to be dishonored. When this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner, on the request of respondent nos. 2 to 4, petitioner provided Rs.3,00,000/- cash but when the petitioner asked respondent nos. 2 to 4 to execute the sale deed, they refused to do so and quarreled with the petitioner on dated 07.03.2022 and assaulted him.

¶11

With regard to incident dated 07.03.2022 petitioner preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Saharanpur on dated 06.04.2022 which was registered as Case no. 113 of 2022 upon which after recording statements of the complainant and witnesses, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Saharanpur passed an order dated 20.02.2023 summoning the respondent nos. 2 to 4 for facing trial under sections 420, 120B & 406 of IPC.

¶12

It is next submitted that although respondent nos. 2 to 4 were summoned, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur failed to consider this aspect that it was the Branch Manager, SBI, Janakpuri Branch/respondent no. 6 who was the real culprit, since without her involvement, how and in what manner the financial embezzlement can be done and that too in respect to an amount which is there in the account of the petitioner and as such petitioner preferred a revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur claiming therein that order dated 20.02.2023 may be modified only to the extent that respondent no. 6/Branch Manager, SBI, Janakpuri Branch) may also be summoned but the revision preferred on behalf of petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Saharanpur which has been challenged through the instant petition.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has not been credited in the account of respondent no. 2 due to fault of the Bank authority, then in which account the said amount was credited this question is to be answered by the Branch Manager i.e. respondent nos. 5 and 6 and without involvement of Bank authorities the said embezzlement could not be done.

¶14

Learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition and supported the order impugned.

¶15

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it transpires that the order dated 20.02.2023 summoning the accused-respondents passed by the trial court indicates that the same has been passed after due consideration of the material available on record. The revisional court in the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 rightly referred to the settled proposition of law that the revisional court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. The scope of revisional court is very limited one.

¶16

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, order impugned dated 10.01.2024 does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court and as such the instant petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Shaswat

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Kumar v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. State of Up and 5 Others

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

Golu Singh @ Akashay Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil vs State of U.P. and Another

Sohanlal Savita vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rikki and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vidit Jaiswal vs State of Up and Another

Sayna and Another vs State of U.P and 3 Others