Disposed

Rohit Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2024A482/10068/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, while hearing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint and summoning order against a subsequent bona fide purchaser, refused to decide the substantive issue of quashing. Instead, the court directed parties to exchange affidavits and issue a notice, but temporarily suspended the effect of the summoning order concerning the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the effect of the impugned summoning order until further orders after exchanging affidavits.

Rohit Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10068 of 2024 Applicant :- Rohit Agarwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Fahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Mohd. Fahim, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned complaint registered as Case No.87404 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Sarojni Nagar, District Lucknow (Umesh Kumar Pal vs. Rohit Agarwal and others) pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow as well as quashing the summoning order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that from a bare perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant, it appears that no allegation regarding the offence under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. is made out against the present applicant. His further submission is that having regard to the entire averments made in the complaint, it would appear that the present applicant is a subsequent purchaser who has nothing to do with any other dispute between the complainant and the other persons, who sold the property in question, as he is a bona fide purchaser.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Badri Nath Agnihotri vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 5912 and Deepak Gaba and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423 and Hon'ble this Court in Lourenco D" Souza vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2016 SCC OnLine All 3249.

¶8

He has also drawn attention of this Court to the fact that learned trial Court, despite the aforesaid facts and unavailability of any ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., has passed the impugned summoning order in respect of the present applicant which is contrary to the law on the issue. His further submission is that even otherwise, offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. cannot co-exist together against the present applicant, who is a subsequent bona fide purchaser for consideration.

¶9

His further submission is that there was an order passed by earlier presiding officer directing the police station concerned to undertake investigation in the light of the provision contained in Section 202 Cr.P.C., however, the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to take note of the aforesaid fact and proceeded to issue process in the absence of any report submitted by the police station concerned, which also vitiates the impugned order in its entirety.

¶10

His next submission is that despite the non-compliance of the provisions as contained in Section 204 I.P.C. in respect of filing of process fee before issuing a process, learned trial Court has issued the process. He, thus,

¶11

submits that the entire proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer. However, he could not dispute the factual submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and keeping in view the submissions advanced by them, the matter requires consideration.

¶14

Issue notice to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

¶15

Steps be taken within four weeks.

¶16

Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.

¶17

A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶18

List immediately after five weeks.

¶19

Meanwhile, impugned summoning order dated 07.08.2024 and any process issued, pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicant only.

¶20

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 A.Dewal

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash Sharma @ Akash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Verma and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sitaram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Virendra Verma and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Anurag Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Anurag Mishra and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another