Disposed¶12

Lal Pratap v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2025NA528/4216/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Vikas Budhwar, J. (neutral citation 2025:AHC:21100; decided 13.2.2025): S.528 BNSS application no. 4216 of 2025 by Lal Pratap to quash the order dated 30.01.2024 and proceedings of Criminal Revision No.55 of 2024 (within Criminal Misc. Application no.979 of 2023, Lal Pratap v. Arpit Mishra) before CJM Jaunpur. Counsel claimed cognizable offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC citing signatures on blank papers/cheques and pressure over installment repayment; AGA called it a contractual dispute and said an FIR cannot be directed to be lodged merely on asking. Court found the narration showed no application of penal sections and no maltreatment on record; application consigned to record.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the present application stands consigned to record. ¶12

Lal Pratap Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the present application stands consigned to record.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the narration of the allegations contained in the application indicates or shows application of the penal sections. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The narration of the allegations contained in the application does not in any manner whatsoever indicate or show application of the penal sections.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

There is nothing on record to show that any maltreatment was done; the report itself does not indicate the same.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 528 BNSS (Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 4216 of 2025) by Lal Pratap before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Vikas Budhwar, J.; neutral citation 2025:AHC:21100) seeking quashing of the order dated 30.01.2024 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Revision No.55 of 2024 (Lal Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising in Criminal Misc. Application no.979 of 2023 (Lal Pratap v. Arpit Mishra), pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. Counsel for the applicant urged that a cognizable offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC stood made out, alleging that the applicant's signature had been obtained on blank papers and cheques, that although financial assistance was received it could not be repaid in one go, and that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 exerted pressure; the AGA countered that both courts below had applied their mind, that an FIR cannot be directed to be lodged merely on asking, and that the matter was a contractual dispute regarding payment involving no criminality. The Judge, having heard counsel and gone through the records, held that the narration of allegations in the application did not in any manner indicate or show application of the penal sections, and that nothing on record showed any maltreatment, the report itself not indicating the same. Accordingly, the application was consigned to record (order date 13.2.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21100

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4216 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Lal Pratap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sakshi Patel,Shiv Naresh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ram Sajiwan Prajapati (A/R 0900/12), advocate holding brief of Ms. Sakshi Patel, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no. 1.

¶7

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 30.01.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Revision No.55 of 2024 (Lal Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and others), in Criminal Misc. Application no.979 of 2023 (Lal Pratap v. Arpit Mishra), pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that cognizable offence stood made out, particularly, when the applicant's signature was obtained on a blank papers and also on the cheques and though the applicant does not dispute the factum of receiving financial assistance but the applicant was not in a position to pay the said amount in one go and so the applicant requested for the payment to be made in installments, however, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 exerted pressure, pursuant whereto, the offences stood made out under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC.

¶9

Learned AGA on the other hand has argued that both the court below have applied their mind, as a matter of fact merely on asking the first information report cannot be directed to be lodged.

¶10

He further submits that it is contractual dispute regarding payment of amount and no criminality can be attributed.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records that the narration of the allegations contained in the application itself does not in any manner whatsoever to indicate or show application of the penal sections, moreover, there is nothing on record to show that there was any maltreatment done as the report itself does not also indicate the same.

¶12

Accordingly, the present application stands consigned to record.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 A. Prajapati

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lal Pratap v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Pratap v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases