Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH SHAHI & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suresh Shahi & Another v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 7102 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 3013 (8 February 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

          Reserved

Criminal Misc. Application No. 7102 of 2005

Suresh Sahi  & another. . . .  Vs.  . . . .  .State of U.P. and another.

---

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

This is an application under section  482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the  proceedings of complaint case  no. 1114 of 2005, State through Sri Rakesh Kumar, S.D.M. Deoria versus Suresh Sahi and another under sections  193, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

The facts relevant for  disposal of this application are that a case under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. was  pending in the court of Sri Pankaj Kumar, S.D.M. Deoria against applicant no.2  Kaushal and in that case he filed bail bonds executed by Suresh Sahi, applicant no.1. Thereafter  an application was moved by Nagesh Pratap Dubey ( first party in that case case ) in the court of S.D.M. Deoria  on 7.3.2005, ( which is Annexure no.1 of the affidavit filed in support of the application under section 482 Cr.P.C.). It was stated therein  that Suresh Sahi had filed Jot Bahi of deceased Shyam Badan impersonating himself as Shyam Badan affixing his own photo in place of Shyam Badan on the  bond. It was further stated that in this way Suresh Sahi and Kaushal had committed fraud with the court and they had committed an offence punishable under sections 193, 419, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. and so action should be taken  against them. On that application learned S.D.M. got  the matter enquired into, and a report was received from Revenue Inspector, Lekhpal and Tahsildar that Shyam Badan had died  on 28.2.2000 and the photo which was affixed on the bail bonds  purporting to be of Shyam Badan was actually the photograph of Suresh Sahi. On the basis of this report  Sri Pankaj Kumar, S.D.M. Deoria prepared a complaint against Suresh Sahi and Kaushal under sections 193, 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. and filed it in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria where it was registered  as criminal case no. 1114 of 2005. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance  on this complaint  and summoned the accused  applicants. The accused applicants moved this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of this order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and  the learned A.G.A. for the State.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that Shyam Badan Sahi, Suresh Sahi and other family members  had joint Jot Bahi and  so that joint Jot Bahi was produced by Suresh Sahi and actually no offence was committed by the accused applicant. It is, however, to be seen that as per prosecution allegations  the case is that  Shyam Badan had died on 28.2.2000,  and thereafter Suresh Sahi claiming himself to be Shyam Badan affixed his photo on the bail bonds  describing it to be photo  of Shyam Badan,  and thus filed fictitious  bail bond in the court of S.D.M. Deoria , and when this fact was verified  by the Revenue Inspector, the Lekhpal and the Tahsildar, the S.D.M. Deoria lodged a complaint against Suresh Sahi and Kaushal. It is to be seen that at the stage of summoning the accused persons the prima facie case is to be seen and as  per the report  received from the Revenue Inspector, the Lekhpal and the Tahsildar  there appears prima facie case  against both the accused persons, and so the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate  committed no error by summoning the accused persons. The criteria for  summoning  of the accused is as to whether  the unrebutted prosecution evidence  makes out a prima facie offence against the accused or not and in the present case there was sufficient evidence  to make out that prima facie case. Thus, the learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality  by summoning the accused persons. The order passed by him does not suffer from any illegality. The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.

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

Dated:

RPP.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.