Disposed

Pradeep Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC1 Apr 2013C482/309/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash chargesheet for cheating, the court summarily disposed of the matter. Instead of granting quashment, the court directed the lower court to decide the applicant's bail application expeditiously without delay if he surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Order directing lower court to dispose of bail application expeditiously without delay if applicant surrenders.

Pradeep Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 309 of 2013

¶2

Pradeep Agarwal …………. Applicant

¶3

versus

¶4

State of Uttarakhand & others …………. Respondents

¶5

Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the applicant / petitioner. Mr. P.S. Saun, AGA for respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶6

Hon’ble U.C. Dh [ yani J. (o, ral)

¶7

By way of present petition / application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant / petitioner seeks to quash the chargesheet dated 9^th January 2011 in Case Crime No. 151 of 2010, in Criminal Case No. 63 of 2011, captioned as State vs. Pradeep Agarwal and others under Section 420 of IPC, pending before IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar.

¶8

An FIR was lodged by one Sobha Dutta against Octagon Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Pradeep Agarwal and agents on 11.10.2010 in police station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar as regards offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC (Case Crime No. 151 of 2010). The allegations in nutshell are that the informant / complainant gave Rs. 1,00,000/- in advance to the construction company, but the construction company did not provide the plot to the informant in time, as promised by it.

¶9

After completing the investigation, a chargesheet for the said offence was submitted against the

¶10

¶11

accused-applicant, cognizance of which chargesheet was taken by the court below. The applicant / petitioner was granted interim protection against coercive measures being taken against him during the course of investigation.

¶12

It is a settled law that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. The said power should not be resorted to like remedy of appeal or revision. The factual aspects need not be gone into by this Court while exercising such jurisdiction. It is also well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the Statute. In view of the said propositions of law, learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner did not press the main relief, but, instead, argued that the bail application of the applicant / petitioner be directed to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay, if the applicant / petitioner surrenders before the court below.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was not the Director of Octagon Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. when the money was received by the said company from the informant / complainant. It was indicated in para 11 of the petition that the applicant / petitioner was ready to refund the booking amount (of rupees one lac) to the informant and a bank

¶14

¶15

draft No. 200426 drawn in favour of ICICI bank dated 27^th of October 2010 has, in fact, been given to the informant on this count. It was also mentioned in para 15 of the petition that the applicant / petitioner resigned from Octagon Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. on 23^rd July 2011 and since then he is not working with the said company.

¶16

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the innocuous prayer made by him deserves to be acceded to. It is accordingly provided that in case the applicant / petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided by the court below as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay. Learned court below is requested to keep in mind the above submissions of learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner while disposing of the bail application.

¶17

With the observations as above, the petition / application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of summarily at the threshold.

¶18

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

¶19

Dt. April 01, 2013. Negi

Pradeep Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

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

Rajeev Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Mohd Haneef Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Makhan Lal @ Lalta Prasad Vs Smt. Kanyawati and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Verma and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others