Dismissed

Krishna Nand Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2024A482/32002/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application seeking quashing of charge-sheet and proceedings for cheating, the court held that disputed facts preclude adjudication at this stage. Finding a prima facie cognizable offence made out, the prayer to quash was refused, but bail considerations were directed in future.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and summoning order refused. Bail applications to be considered expeditiously if surrendered.

Krishna Nand Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:155465

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32002 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Krishna Nand Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and summoning order dated 26.9.2022 as well as the entire proceedings in Case No. 4777 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Narhi, District Ballia pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. The applicants are the bonafide purchaser of the land in question and they have neither cheated the opposite party no.2 and his family members nor obtained wrongful gain in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.

¶10

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶11

As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,

¶12

A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the applicants. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicants during the course of investigation. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.

¶13

In the last, learned counsel for the applicants has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants be given in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶14

Hence, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the Court concerned and applly for bail, their bail applications shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 safi

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Nand Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Nand Yadav and 2 Others 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

Smt Neelam Sharma vs State of U.P.

Vikram Bhardwaj vs State of Up

Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Karan vs State of Up and Another

Sushil Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Mahendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another