Rakesh Awasthi @ Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024A482/2171/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 petition seeking quashing of cheating/forgery proceedings on the ground that the petitioner, a power of attorney holder, never acted upon it. Court issued notice, sought counter affidavit, and stayed further trial proceedings against the petitioner until the next listing.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 17979/2023 stayed as regards the petitioner till next date; notice ordered to opposite party no.2.

Rakesh Awasthi @ Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2171 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh Awasthi @ Rakesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Law Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Shankar,Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri P.S. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶7

Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶8

By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following main relief:-

¶9

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings of crime case no.17979/2023 arising out of Chargesheet No. 02 dated 15.05.2023 u/s 420 IPC in Crime No. 630/2021 u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC registered on 25.11.2021 at P.S. Sarojni Nagar South Commiserate District Lucknow together with cognizance and summoning order dated 26.09.2023 under sections 420 IPC issued by Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate 8th Lucknow so far as it relates to applicant."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated the the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case inasmuch as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Only and sole allegation against the petitioner is that he is a power of attorney holder of a person, who was fake and the actual person is opposite party no.2. This is also an admitted position that on the basis of aforesaid power of attorney, the petitioner has not acted further and has not used/ misused the aforesaid power of attorney. On the basis of aforesaid power of attorney, no transaction of any kind whatsoever has been done. Therefore, the charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC could have not been filed.

¶11

Sri Bajpai has also submitted that immediately after filing of the charge sheet, the court concerned has not only taken

¶12

cognizance of the charge sheet and issued summons but also framed the charge against the petitioner without giving him any opportunity to file discharge application.

¶13

Matter requires consideration.

¶14

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter.

¶15

List in the week commencing 22.04.2024.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.17979 of 2023 (supra) shall remain stayed so far as the present petitioner is concerned. However, for other co-accused persons, if any, learned trial court may proceed further, strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 15.3.2024 RBS/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Awasthi @ Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Awasthi @ Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Srivastava Vs Dr. Anamika Singh, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Child Development and Nutrition, U.P. Lko. and Another

Yamuna Singh Vs Dr. Aashish Kumar Singh, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Raebareli

Laxman Das Vadhwa Vs Mr Ranvir Prasad, Housing Commissioner, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow and Another

Ram Surat Vs Shri Raj Kapoor, Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil-Aalapur, Circle-Ram Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar

Krishna Mohan Singh Vs Shri Yogendra Nath Singh, Joint Director Education, Gorakhpur

Vivek Kumar Vs Sri Sitanshu Pandey, Divisional Forest Officer, Ayodhya