Dismissed

Parvej Alam v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024A482/12852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the rejection of a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. petition where the impugned order involved a financier legally attaching a borrower's vehicle due to loan default. The court found no criminality established.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as the impugned order and exercise of jurisdiction by the lower court were found not illegal.

Parvej Alam vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:133756

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12852 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Parvej Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- M. Asif,Shamim Uddin Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Pravej Alam, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shamim Uddin Khan, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

¶7

2. Perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Pravej Alam challenging the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Jaunpur, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 902 of 2023 (Pravej Alam Vs. Roshan Ray under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, DistrictJaunpur whereby aforementioned application filed by applicant has been rejected. .

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant in challenge to the order impugned submits that on perusal of the application dated 17.12.2023 filed by applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., it is crystal clear that commission of cognizance offence is clearly disclosed. Referring to the Five Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 , it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that since the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by applicant before court below clearly discloses the commission of a cognizable

¶10

offence, therefore, Court below had no other option but to allow the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by applicant. In view of above, he submits that the view taken by court below is manifestly illegal and therefore the order impugned is liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶11

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. He submits that subsequent to the Five Judge Bench Judgement of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra) , a Two Judges Bench in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 ,. has held that jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in a routine manner. Courts should exercise caution and circumspection while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is in line with above that court below has examined the material on record and come to the conclusion that the vehicle of brother of applicant was attached on account of default in payment of installment committed by brother of applicant in the loan taken by him. As such, no illegality has been committed by court below in passing the order impugned. It is thus urged that present application is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

¶12

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶13

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that court below has rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by applicant on the finding that no criminality is established against prospective accused. The brother of applicant had got his vehicle financed. Since the brother of applicant had committed default in payment of installment, therefore, the vehicle

¶14

of brother of applicant was attached. The action of prospective accused, who are opposite parties 4 to 8 herein, cannot be said to be illegal as the Financier has right to attach the vehicle in question. In view of above, this Court finds that neither the order impugned is illegal nor the court below has exercised it's jurisdiction in a cavalier fashion.

¶15

As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 YK

¶18

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Parvej Alam v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvej Alam v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Devendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Pankaj vs State of Up and Another

Satish Pandey @ Satishchandra vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Mangal vs State of Up and Another