Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024A482/21527/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and charge sheet in a cheating case. The court found sufficient investigation material against the accused and held the applicant failed to dislodge the State's objections.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash proceedings and charge sheet is dismissed.

Deena Nath Nagar vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152184

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21527 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Deena Nath Nagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Applicant Deena Nath Nagar, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the following prayer:-

¶8

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding and charge sheet No. A07 of 2023 dated 06.11.20-23 as well as summoning order dated 17.07.2023 in case crime/F.I.R. No. 0430 of 2022, under sections 406, 419, 420, 504 I.P.C. (State of U.P. Versus Deena Nath Nagar) Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur registered in the court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, District Jaunpur on 17.07.2023 as criminal case No. 1160 of 2023.

¶9

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings criminal case No. 1160 of 2023 as well as summoning order dated 17.07.2023 in case no. 111 of 2024 (State Vs. Surendra Kumar and others) pertaining in case crime/F.I.R. No. 0430 of 2022, under sections 406, 419, 420, 504 I.P.C. (State of U.P. Versus Deena Nath Nagar) Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur in the court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, District Jaunpur during the pendency of the case or the court below may be directed to consider and decide, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶10

And or pass such any other and further suitable order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case."

¶11

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that during course of investigation, sufficient material emerged against applicant, which prima facie goes to establish the criminality committed by

¶12

the applicant. Accordingly, applicant has been charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that applicant, first informant, who has retired from the post of Driver from the office of C.M.O. Jaunpur. In all a sum of Rs. 2 lacs has been cheated by the applicant. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. contends that no question of law and fact has been established so as to quash the impugned proceedings. It is also contended by the learned A.G.A. that the the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has occurred on the fact that the repeatedly demand was made by the first informant for return of money. When ultimately, applicant did not return the amount, the F.I.R. was lodged. Referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176, he, therefore, contends that no adverse inference can be drawn against first informant for delay in lodging the F.I.R.

¶13

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

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, 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 could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant.

¶15

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

¶16

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 HSM

¶18

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deena Nath Nagar 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

Similar cases

Pradeep Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan and 3 Others vs State of Up and ANOther

Praveen vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola @ Nafisa Khan and Another vs State of Up and Another

Surendra Kumar and 3 Others vs State of Up ANOther

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