Remanded

Neetu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2024A482/3977/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this interim order under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court stayed the criminal proceedings, summoning order, and non-bailable warrant pending filing of affidavits by the opposite parties in a case alleging cheating for financial reasons.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings, summoning order dated 11.10.2021, and non-bailable warrant dated 04.01.2024 stood stayed pending filing of affidavits.

Neetu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3977 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Neetu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravindra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned proceedings of Criminal Case No.10272 of 2023 as well as summoning order dated 11.10.2021 and non bailable warrant dated 04.01.2024 issued by the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Room No.31, Sultanpur arising out under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant applicant has been falsely implicated in a false, frivolous and vexatious case by the opposite party no.2 with ulterior motive. The fact of the case is that the applicant is a working Review Officer in Uttar Pradesh Secretariat, Lucknow and the opposite party no.2 wants financial help from the applicant. The applicant helped several times to the opposite party no.2 but now she is not in a position to help as she came to know that the opposite party no.2 is habitual of demanding money, therefore, she stopped to pay the money to the opposite party no.2. Being aggrieved by the action of applicant, the opposite party no.2 has lodged this false case against the applicant without any basis, which is totally unbelievable and abuse of process of law.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Magistrate without considering all the aspects of the case and in a cursory manner had summoned the applicant to face trial by the impugned order dated 11.10.2021. Thus, he prays for interim relief.

¶9

The matter requires consideration on the fact and law both.

¶10

Learned A.G.A.-I has accepted notice on behalf of the State i.e. opposite party no.1.

¶11

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 through R.P.A.D.

¶12

returnable at an early date.

¶13

Steps in this regard be taken within ten days from today.

¶14

Learned A.G.A.-I as well as opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶15

Put up this case on 28.08.2024.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.10272 of 2023 as well as effect and operation of summoning order dated 11.10.2021 and non bailable warrant dated 04.01.2024 issued by the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Room No.31, Sultanpur arising out under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur shall remain stayed in respect of the applicant.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.5.2024 Saurabh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neetu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Sushila Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Kabir Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Riyaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Rajiv Mohan Saxena and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Rajdeep Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.