Disposed

Susheel Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2024A482/10541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a summoning order and charge-sheets in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case, claiming part payment of Rs.7 lakhs out of Rs.11 lakhs and possible settlement by mediation. Court found the matter required consideration, issued notice with mediation report to be filed, and kept proceedings in abeyance pending further review.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in issue kept in abeyance qua the applicant till next date of listing (19.12.2024), subject to notice steps within four working days.

Susheel Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10541 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Susheel Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶7

"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the summoning order dated 07.06.2024 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No. 52865/2024, as contained in Annexure No. 1, by virtue of which the applicant was summoned for offences under Section 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC as well as Charge-sheet No. 01 and 02 dated 13/07/2019 and 05/02/2024 respectively as contained in Annexure No. 2, filed against the applicant in pursuant to Crime No. 1028/2017 P.S. Hazratganj District Lucknow for offences under sections 406/420/504/506 I.P.C. It is further prayed that further proceedings of Case No. 52865/2024 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow may kindly be stayed till the pendency of this petition."

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant for the purposes of entertaining the present application and seeking interim protection, stated that according to the case of the prosecution, the informant/opposite party No.2 provided Rs.11 Lakhs to the applicant and on being demanded, the same could not be provided to the informant.

¶9

It is stated that out of Rs. 11 Lakhs, Rs.7 Lakhs were returned to the informant, which is evident from the contents of the charge sheet itself.

¶10

It is also stated that in fact Rs. 11 Lakhs were not provided by the informant to the applicant and the matter requires deliberation on the issue.

¶11

In the FIR, the informant has exaggerated the amount provided and also levelled the allegations related to providing Job at Civil Secretariate, Lucknow, U.P. to create the gravity of the offence, which are not true.

¶12

It is also stated that remaining amount, if any, which could not be provided on account of financial crunch, would also be provided to the

¶13

informant.

¶14

It is submitted that in view of aforesaid facts of the case as also that the matter related to remaining amount could be settled by way of mediation, indulgence of this Court is required.

¶15

Upon due consideration, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

¶16

Issue notice, returnable at an early date. Steps in this regard be taken within four working days.

¶17

List/put up this case before this Court on 19.12.2024 within top 30 cases alongwith mediation report.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings in issue shall be kept in abeyance qua the applicant.

¶19

In case, steps are not taken by the revisionist within the specified time, the interim protection granted by this Court shall not be available to the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 22.11.2024 Vinay/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Susheel Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheel Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 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

Kaushlendra Pratap Srivastava Vs Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner, Dairy Development Lko. and Another

Khursheed Alam Vs Learned Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Vimla Vs Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Parana @ Parana Devi vs Shri Kumar Prashant Director Social Welfare Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Jamal Khan vs Nisar Khan

Jaipal Sharma vs Ashok Kumar Singh Finance Controller Police Head Quarter Lko and Another