Dismissed

Manoj @ Kallu Pal v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024A482/24803/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that determining factual credibility and evidence lies within the trial court, and no illegality or *mala fides* was evident to warrant quashing.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the summoning order, charge-sheet, and proceedings was dismissed.

Manoj @ Kallu Pal vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:167450

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24803 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj @ Kallu Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Sharma,Surendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 3.1.2024 and charge-sheet dated 16.9.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.80 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.32 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC and Section 63/65 of Copyright Act, Police Station-Basrehrar, District-Etawah, pending in the court of ACJM-I, Etawah.

¶8

The prosecution's case in brief is that the applicant has allegedly impersonated himself as a peon in UP Secretariat and assured the informant to get job of his son, and took Rs.3,90,000/- from opposite party No.2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the victim both are farmers of the same village and the applicant has been falsely implicated at the behest of complainant. The applicant is not the beneficiary of the amount in question. He has not taken any amount from opposite party No.2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he was granted bail with the finding by the trial court that the time and date of the delivery of

¶10

alleged money has not been indicated in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant also stated that the FIR was registered in the midnight, therefore, it creates doubt that the applicant has been falsely dragged in the instant case.

¶11

Per contra , learned AGA has opposed the prayer and drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the opposite party No.2, recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein specific allegation of alluring and receiving the money in the name of facilitating a job in the UP Secretariat to the son of opposite party No.2, has been made against the applicant, therefore, the instant proceedings are not liable to be quashed.

¶12

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and having gone through the material available on record, it's prima facie observed that the applicant has allegedly received Rs.3,90,000/- from

¶14

opposite party No.2 for facilitating a job to the son of opposite party no.2 in the UP Secretariat by impersonating as a peon in U.P. Secretariat and created forged documents. On perusal of the contents of the FIR, statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and materials available on record, no case for quashing of the proceedings is made out.

¶15

Hence, the instant application is devoid of merit and it is accordingly, dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 LN Tripathi

¶17

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj @ Kallu Pal v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj @ Kallu Pal v. State of Up 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

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Vidharam vs State of Up and Another

Vasim Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Shamsher Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Priti Chauhan and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Hasan Alias Kareem vs State of U.P. and Another