Dismissed¶14

Komil Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2025A482/23908/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. application dismissed; Criminal Revision allowed against summoning order; matter remanded to Magistrate for fresh order; Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. examination of complainant and witnesses; Section 406 I.P.C. summons (as submitted by applicant's counsel); job-on-pretext fraud, Rs. 2 lakhs (Rs. 1 lakh cash, Rs. 1 lakh cheque); Pilibhit Sessions Court; Allahabad High Court 2025:AHC:50694; Raj Beer Singh, J.; Komil Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another.

What did the court decide?

In view of the material on record and the facts of the matter, the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality; there has been no abuse of the process of Court and the impugned order has not resulted in any miscarriage of justice. ¶12

Komil Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2024 of the Revisional Court (allowing the revision against the summoning order dated 14.07.2023 and remanding the matter to the Magistrate) suffers from patent illegality, abuse of the process of Court, or results in miscarriage of justice, so as to warrant invocation of the High Court's powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶7

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

No case is made out for invoking the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Key takeaways

Since the matter has been remanded back to the learned Magistrate, the applicant can raise his case before the Magistrate concerned.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 71), Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J. — Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23908 of 2024 (Komil Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another), Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:50694, Order Date 8.4.2025: DISMISSED. The applicant challenged the judgment dated 24.05.2024 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Pilibhit in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2023 (CNR No. UPPB010061102023, titled Mukesh Kumar Vs. Komil Prasad and Another), whereby the revision filed by opposite party no. 2 against the summoning order dated 14.07.2023 was allowed and the matter remanded to the learned Magistrate. Background: complaint alleging that, on the pretext of providing a job to the complainant's son in a hospital, opposite party no. 2 took Rs. 2 lakhs (per applicant's counsel: Rs. 1 lakh in cash and Rs. 1 lakh by cheque; summons stated to be under Section 406 I.P.C.); complainant examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., witnesses Chhotelal and Morepal under Section 202 Cr.P.C.; the Session Court had found the summoning mechanical and remanded for a fresh order. Held: the impugned order discloses no patent illegality, no abuse of the process of Court and no miscarriage of justice; no case for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers; the applicant may raise his case before the Magistrate concerned.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50694

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23908 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Komil Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Pilibhit in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2023 CNR No. UPPB010061102023 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. Komil Prasad and Another), whereby the revision filed by opposite party no. 2 against summoning order has been allowed and matter has been remanded back to the learned Magistrate.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The applicant / complainant has made clear allegations that on pretext of providing a job to his son in hospital, the opposite party no. 2 has taken total amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from him. Amount of Rs. one lakh was given in cash and Rs. one lakh was given through cheque. It was submitted that neither any job was provided to the son of opposite party no. 2 / complainant nor his amount was returned back. Learned Magistrate has considered entire facts and summoned the opposite party no. 2 under Section 406 I.P.C. by summoning order dated 14.07.2023. It is submitted that by impugned order learned Revisional Court has quashed the said

¶9

summoning order in an arbitrary manner and remanded the matter to the Magistrate concerned. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

Perusal of record shows that applicant has filed a complaint against opposite party no. 2 making allegations that on pretext of providing a job to the son of complainant in hospital, the opposite party no. 2 has taken Rs. 2 lakhs from applicant. It was further alleged that neither any job was provided to son of applicant nor his amount was returned back. The applicant / complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses namely, Chhotelal and Morepal were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The opposite party no. 2 was summoned by learned Magistrate vide summoning order dated 14.07.2023. It appears that the opposite party no. 2 has preferred a Criminal Revision against the summoning order dated 14.07.2023 before the Session Court. The Session Court has observed that the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without making any reference to the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and quashed the summoning order and matter was remanded back to the Magistrate to pass an order afresh. In view of material on record and facts of the matter, it can not be said that impugned order is suffering from any patent illegality or that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or the impugned order has resulted into any miscarriage of justice. As the matter has been remanded back to the learned

¶13

Magistrate, applicant can raise his case before the Magistrate concerned. Considering entire facts, no case for invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out and thus, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 SK Srivastava

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Komil Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komil Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases