Dismissed

Smriti Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024A482/14852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court examined arguments for quashing criminal proceedings alleging extortion and conspiracy. The court rejected the challenge, holding that facts regarding payment were disputed for trial.

What did the court decide?

Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Bail application of applicant-1 pending below to consider proviso to section 437 Cr.P.C.

Smriti Agrawal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152894

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14852 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smriti Agrawal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Tiwari,Mohammad Abid Ali,Rajeev Sawhney,Raju Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankur Sharma,G.A.,Nidhi A. Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rajeev Sawhney, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ankur Sharma, the learned counsel for first informant/opposite party-2.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicants in Court today is taken on record.

¶9

Applicants- Smriti Agrawal and Bharat Agrawal, who are charge sheeted accused have approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶10

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the whole proceeding of criminal case no. 460 of 2023 (State Vs. Ajay and others) arising out of Case crime no. 151 Of 2023, under section 387, 120-B I.P.C. against the applicant no. 1 and under section 387, 384 of I.P.C. against the applicant no. 2 at Police Station- Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, alongwith impugned charge sheet dated 19.06.2023 together with cognizance and summoning order dated 25.07.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bareilly pending before him.

¶11

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of criminal case no. 460 of 2023 (State Vs. Ajay and others) arising out of Case crime no. 151 Of 2023, under section 387, 120-B I.P.C. against the applicant no. 1 and under section 387, 384 of I.P.C. against the applicant no. 2 at Police Station- Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bareilly, and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶12

\And /Or to pass such other and further order which this Honble court

¶13

deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of case, otherwise applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶14

Learned counsel for applicants submits that from the perusal of impugned F.I.R. no offnece under section 506, 387, 384 IPC, are made out as no valuable security has been transferred. To buttress his submission he has relied upon judgement of Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay [(1986) 2 SCC 716, Isaac Isanga Musumba and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2014) 15 SCC 357. He, therefore, contends that present application is liable to be allowed.

¶15

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ankur Sharma, the learned counsel for first informant/opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present application. They submit that there is clear recital in the F.I.R. that on account of criminal intimidation/threat extended by accused, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was paid. On account of above, it is urged that offence under section 387, 384 IPC is clearly made out from perusal of F.I.R. itself. The issue as to whether, the said amount was paid or not is a disputed question of fact, which can be examined only during the course of trial. In view of above, they submit that no question of law has emerged so as to warrant interference by this Court. As such, present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

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

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage.

¶18

In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

Considering the fact that applicant-1 is a lady, therefore, Court below while deciding the bail application of applicant-1 shall be guided by the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Arshad

¶22

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

Smriti Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smriti Agrawal and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar and 3 Others vs State of Up ANOther

Deena Nath Nagar vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwat Sharan Yadav vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Raj Kumar Jaiswal and 11 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ali @ Bablu Mandal vs State of U.P. and Another

Neha Arora and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another