SUSHIL KUMAR AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Sushil Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14461 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20351 (30 November 2006)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No.   14461  of 2006

***

1. Sushil Kumar son of Prem Shanker,

R/o Mohalla Baksaria, P.S. Kotwali,

District Shahjahanpur.

2. Sanjau Kumar S/o Chandrapal Mishra,

R/o  Mohalla Roshanganj,  P.S. Kotwali,

District Shahjahanpur.

3. Shiv Kumar @ Shibbu, son of Prakash,

R/o Khwaja Firoj, P.S. Kotwali,

District Shahjahanpur. ....... Accused-.Applicants

Vs.

1. State of U.P.

2. Mnoj son of Salik Ram,

R/o Village Reharia, P.S. Sindhauli,

District Shahjahanpur. ( Informant)

Opp.Parties.

****

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. Heard Sri B.B. Jaiswal, advocate for the applicants  Sushil Kumar and three others  and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

2. In Criminal Complaint Case No. 1651 of 2004, presently pending in the Court of IInd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur  filed by the Opp.Party No. 2  Manoj son of Saliq Ram besides other Rakesh  and Manoj  partners of form Ganga Sahai  Bhagwan Sahai, the  process was also issued against the present applicants under Sections 420,406,504 and 506 I.P.C.

3. The allegation is that applicants   Sushil Kumar  Sanjau  Kumar  are the Munims  and applicant no.3 Shiv Kumar @ Shibbu  is the  weighmen of the firm. Opp. Party No. 2 sells  the grain collected  from the farmers, in  Mandi Samiti. During a transaction in question between him and the firm, all  these three applicants and the partners of the firm   defrauded him with an amount of Rs. 6,82,000/-.

4. The applicants have, therefore,  come here under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for termination of the criminal  proceedings.

5. It is contended on behalf of the  applicants that there was no criminal intent on the part of the applicants. The transaction was exactly between the firm and the seller, Opp.Party No. 2.  The applicants are merely the servants of the firm, and, they cannot be fastened with any criminal liability.

6. All these questions are the questions of fact, which can be determined by the trial Magistrate in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and  there is no such material on the record, on the basis whereof, it may be said that no case is made out against the applicants-accused.

7. Even the Judicatory Principle and the practice require that such  grievances be first raised before the Trial Magistrate by filing a discharge application and in case the applicant raise them before the trial Magistrate, the Trial Magistrate will decide them after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case before he further proceeds with the trial.

8. With this observation, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.

9. However, incase, the applicants apply for bail, their bail application will be considered  the same day.

Dt:   30.11.2006

  14461/ 06 n.u.

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.