Partly allowed

Rohit Shakya Alias Rohit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024A482/11237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court stayed proceedings under sections 504 and 506 IPC initiated due to a civil property dispute. The court dismissed the prayer for quashing at this stage but granted stay as an interim measure pending counter affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Stayed further proceedings in Case No. 28689 of 2023 pending filing of counter affidavits.

Rohit Shakya Alias Rohit vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:140144

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11237 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Shakya Alias Rohit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Markandey Rai,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Sandeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hitesh Pachori

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. P.K. Rai, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ajay Shyam Prajapati, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Hitesh Pachori, the learned counsel for first informant/opposite party-2.

¶7

Applicant Rothi Shakya Alias Rohit, who is a charge sheeted accused has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the charge sheet dated 27.5.2023, submitted in Case Crime No. 98 of 2023, under sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kamlanagar, District Agra, the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 20.11.2023, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Agra in Criminal Case No. 28689 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Rohit), under sections 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Kamlanagar, District Agra, as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned case.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that impugned charge sheet as well as Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order passed by Jurisdictional Magistrate are manifestly illegal. In support of above, he has invited the attention of the Court to the F.I.R., copy of which is on record at Annexure-2 to the affidavit. With reference to above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that exact words spoken by accused have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. He has then referred to the statement of the first informant occurring at page 54 of the paper book and on basis thereof he submits that first informant lodged F.I.R. on account of property dispute. As per the said statement the first informant has himself not supported the F.IR. and the malafide intention in lodging the F.I.R. is clearly explict from the same. He further submits that on account of pending property disputes between the parties, the aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged which fact clearly emanates from the F.I.R. itself. As such, a purely civil dispute has

¶9

been dragged into criminal litigation. The informant in her aforesaid statement has not supported the F.I.R. As such, impugned proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of Court. Consequently, the same are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶10

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the present application. They submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration.

¶12

Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. Mr. Hitesh Pachori, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party-2. They pray for and are granted four weeks time to file their respective counter affidavits. Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavits.

¶13

List for admission after expiry of aforesaid period.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that until further orders of this Court further proceedings of Case No. 28689 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Rohit), under sections 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Kamlanagar, District Agra., now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-7, Agra shall remain stayed.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Arshad

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Shakya Alias Rohit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Shakya Alias Rohit v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Km. Sushma vs State of Up and 6 Others

Vishwanath Chaturvedi and 3 Others vs Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority Mathura

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt Najma Begam and 4 Others

Shailesh Kumar Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sanju Kumar @ Sanju Sagar and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Manish Kumar Yadav vs Navneet Singh Chahal, District Magistrate