Allowed

Gagandeep Singh @ Gangandeep Singh v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC22 Aug 2014CR. MISC./581/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed petition to quash order of cognizance under Section 206 CrPC. Court held complaint was an abuse of process involving fabricated jurisdictional facts as petitioner resided in Punjab at time of alleged incident.

What did the court decide?

Order of cognizance dated 23.5.2008 in Complaint case No.550C of 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, set aside.

Gagandeep Singh @ Gangandeep Singh Vs State Of Bihar and… — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.581 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -550 Year- 2008 District- WESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== 1. Gagandeep Singh @ Gangandeep Singh S/O Kehar Singh, R/O House No. 4030, Phase II, Urban Estate, Patiala (Punjab). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Januel Ahmad S/O Late Enayat Ali, R/O Noniyar Toli, Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah Town, District West Champaran. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No.2, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 6 22-08-2014 The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance dated 23.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Complaint case No.550C of 2008. The case of the Complainant is that the Petitioner had cheated him of a certain amount of money and on certain date he had come from Haryana and taken a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶3

A Supplementary Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner stating therein that on the date concerned the Petitioner was not even in India and hence it was not physically possible that he would come to the Complainant’s house for extorting the money. The further submission is that even though the Petitioner resides in Punjab, present Complaint has been filed

¶4

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.581 of 2014 (6) dt.22-08-2014

¶5

2/2

¶6

in West Champaran having embellished charges in the Complaint that the Petitioner had come to West Champaran to take the money for creating jurisdiction. He further submits that it is impossible to believe that a person would come all the way from Punjab to West Champaran to extort the money from the Complainant.

¶7

On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainant disputes the document annexed as Annexure-6 on the ground that both the documents are expired.

¶8

Considering that entries were made at the relevant period when the Petitioner is said to have come to West Champaran to extort money and the same is authentic, I would hold that the present Complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be set aside.

¶9

Hence the application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 23.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Complaint case No.550C of 2008 is hereby set aside.

¶10

(Anjana Prakash, J)

¶11

Narendra/-

¶12

U T

Gagandeep Singh @ Gangandeep Singh v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagandeep Singh @ Gangandeep Singh v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

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

Kittu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Baby Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Veena Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Vigilance

Shoukat Ali and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Mani Kant Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar

Prem Shankar Tiwary Vs The State Of Bihar