Remanded

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2024A482/5521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court held that offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are contrary to each other. Consequently, the court stayed the impugned proceedings while issuing a notice to the informant for further consideration.

What did the court decide?

Stayed impugned proceedings and issued notice to the informant/opposite party no.2.

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5521 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶3

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

¶4

Present application has been moved by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 03.02.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Hardoi and charge sheet dated 31.05.2023 in Case Crime No.115 of 2023 U/S 420, 406 I.P.C. P.S. Bilgram, District- Hardoi.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted impugned proceeding is a malicious one, as charge sheet has been filed under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. He further submitted that both the offences are contrary to each other and trial for these offences cannot run together but this fact was not considered by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶6

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Shiv Kumar and another vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another reported in Crl.M.C.1537/2023, Crl.M.A.5860/2023 dated 03.07.2023.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of applicants and submitted that after detailed investigation, charge sheet has been submitted.

¶8

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of application, as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that offences committed under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. are contrary to each other, hence, the trial for these offences cannot run together. In such circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

¶9

List this case in the third week of August, 2024.

¶10

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

¶11

Until further order, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.6.2024/V. Sinha

¶13

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Verma vs Mamta Verma

Patan vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Distt. Bahraich and Another

Abhinav Sinha vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Simmi Dhawan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and 3 Others

Rajmani Mishra vs Nirmala Mishra and Another

Kriti Shukla and Another vs Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division ) Malihabad Lucknow and 3 Others