Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024A227/4769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to review an order by the Additional Sessions Judge and a summoning order by the Judicial Magistrate in a criminal revision and complaint case. The petitioner challenged his summoning for offences involving forged will deeds and cheques, arguing the matter was civil. The Court found prima facie material and dismissed the petit

What the court decided

AI extract

Santosh Kumar Dubey vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139080

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4769 of 2024 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ghanshyam Kumar Kesarwani, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following prayers:

¶7

"(I) Set aside the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Azamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2017 (Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as summoning order dated 21.01.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 1745 of 2014 (Rohit Mishra vs. Santosh Kumar Dubey and others)."

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been illegally summoned to face the trial under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC. It has further been submitted that the alleged dispute is basically civil in nature and three suits for cancellation of Will Deed are already pending decision.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid contention and has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. It has further been submitted by State Counsel that the alleged Will Deed was not found to be registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Zone-3, Kanpur Nagar and was found to be a forged Will Deed. The petitioner got his name mutated on the basis of forged Will Deed, therefore, prima facie sufficient material is available to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid rival submissions, there is no illegality in the orders impugned. No interference is required.

¶11

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

However, in case, the petitioner applies for bail before the court concerned the same may be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.8.2024/Puspendra

¶14

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

Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rampal Singh and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Rafeek Nau @ Mohammad Rafik and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajpati Upadhayay vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Annapurna vs Rajnish Mishra

Smt Alka vs Rohit Kumar and 3 Others

Sonu Kumar vs State of Up and Another