Disposed

Vijay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024A482/8184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and cognizance order, the court noted the allegations of fraudulent FIR and granted interim stay of proceedings against the applicant, allowing time for the opposite party to file a counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings were stayed qua the applicant till the next date of listing.

Vijay Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8184 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Sri Nivas Rathore, Advocate alongwith Ms. Romi Verma, Advocate, who filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in the Court today, which is taken on record and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief(s):-

¶7

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to quashed/set aside impugned charge sheet dated 24.12.2023 in Crime No. 631/2023, U/s 420, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station PGI, District Lucknow Commissionerate East Ann. No.1 and cognizance order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, in Criminal Case No. 31244/2024, State of U.P Versus Vijay Kumar Pathak, in Crime No. 631/2023, U/s 420, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station PGI, District Lucknow Commissionerate East Ann-2 and entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 31244/2024, State of U.P Versus Vijay Kumar Pathak, in Crime No. 631/2023, U/s 420, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station PGI, District Lucknow Commissionerate, in the interest of justice."

¶8

For the purposes of entertaining the instant application and granting interim protection, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. 0631/2023 dated 05.10.2023 lodged by the opposite party No. 2/ Hanumant Niwas Pathak making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC at Police Station- PGI, DistrictLucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow), which is the basis of pending Criminal Case No. 31244 of 2024 (State of U.P Versus Vijay Kumar Pathak), is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶9

In continuation, it is stated that just to settle the scores related to Panchayat Elections, the opposite party No. 2, who is uncle of the applicant, has lodged the FIR in issue making allegations therein against the applicant to the effect that Rs. 5 Lakhs were given to him towards advance in relation to property i.e. House No. 2, situated at Pathak Puram Colony, P.S.- SGPGI, Raebareli Raod, Lucknow through Cheque No. 923436 of SGPGI Branch, State Bank of India and Rs. 45 Lakhs in cash were also given to him in two parts.

¶10

It is stated that Rs. 5 Lakhs were initially provided to the applicant through Cheque No. 011298, which was bounced. Thereafter, in view of settlement arrived at between the parties, the opposite party No. 2 issued Cheque

¶11

No. 923436 in favour of the applicant amounting to Rs. 5 Lakhs, which has already been en cashed, as would appear from the statement of account annexed as Annexure No. 15 at page No. 74 of the paper book.

¶12

It is also stated that there is no proof with the prosecution so as to establish that the amount(s) as indicated in the FIR i.e Rs. 25 Lakhs and Rs. 20 Lakhs in cash were given to the applicant except oral statements in this regard. It is also stated that such a huge amount could not be given as per law in cash to anyone by any person.

¶13

It is lastly stated that in view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that entire FIR is bogus, as such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

¶14

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

¶15

Learned counsel for the side opposite prays and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit in the matter. One week's time thereafter shall be available to the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

List thereafter in the month of October, 2024 showing the names of Sri Nivas Rathore, Advocate alongwith Ms. Romi Verma, Advocate, as counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings, in issue, shall remain stayed qua the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Arun/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. 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

Similar cases

Seema Devi Vs Mangala Prasad Singh, Distt. Magistrate / Collector, Hardoi

Smt. Kiran Sharma Vs Shri Parth Sarthi Sen Sharma Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services, U.P. Lko.

Rajan Singh Vs Sri Saurabh Babu, Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko.

Sabir Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 3 Others

Mohd. Kausar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Head Constable (Civil Police) Jitendra Kumar and 2 Others vs Sri Prabhakar Chaudhary, Police U.P. Maha Nirikshak (Karmik), U.P. Police Headquarter Lko.