Dismissed

Gulab Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024A482/23882/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for misappropriation of a service book, the single judge refused the prayer. The court held that the applicant was duty-bound to secure the record and trial was necessary to determine liability, though the applicant was directed to move for discharge within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing proceedings refused; applicant directed to move for discharge in trial court within 60 days.

Gulab Singh vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124887

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23882 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gulab Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 18.01.2020, cognizance dated 10.06.2020 and summoning order dated 04.06.2024 in Case No. 7077 of 2020, Crime No. 53 of 2018, under Section 409 I.P.C., Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in present case. It is further submitted that he was custodian of the service book of the employees. Co-accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava was also working with him, who took the service book with him, regarding which he lodged an FIR against Rajesh Kumar Srivastava under Section 409 I.P.C. No any departmental inquiry was initiated against the present applicant and no liability was fixed. It is also submitted that co-accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava was suspended and inquiry was also conducted against him. It is further submitted that statement of Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned was recorded during the course of the investigation by the investigating officer in which he stated that there was carelessness on the part of the applicant and co-accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, who was posted to assist him and this fact came into knowledge of the Sub Divisional Magistrate that Rajesh Kumar Srivastava took service book with him but the applicant was custodian of the service book so he was also made an accused by the investigating officer, as a result charge sheet was filed. Learned trial court took cognizance of the offence without perusing the record in proper way and without applying its judicial mind, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case

¶9

including the charge sheet and order of cognizance.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that applicant himself was custodian of the record and he was duty bound to keep the record in safe custody. The record was misplaced from the custody of the applicant regarding which he lodged an FIR against co-accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, who was also working with him on the same seat. At this stage, it cannot be said conclusively as to whether service book was misappropriated by the present applicant or by co-accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava. This fact can only be decided during the course of the trial before the learned trial court, therefore, there is no ground to quash the entire proceedings of the case. It is also contended that co-accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava also filed Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. No. 16680 of 2020 which was dismissed by this Court after considering the martial collected during the course of the investigation vide order dated 19.04.2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶12

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of evidence available on record, there appears no any ground to grant indulgence in favour of the applicant and the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding including the chargesheet is hereby refused . However, applicant may have an option to move an application for discharge before the learned trial court within a period of 60 days from today, which shall be heard and decided in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record.

¶13

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of finally

¶15

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 T.S.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulab Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Digendra Alias Vijendra Alias Dk vs State of U.P. and Another

Rinku and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajat Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Shahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Chandra Dev Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashoda Devi and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another