High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Amar Singh v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8671 of 1988  RD-AH 7264 (20 April 2007)
Criminal Misc. Application No. 8671 of 1988
Amar Singh and others.. Vs.. State of U.P. and another
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 21.7.1988 whereby the petitioners were summoned for the offences u/s 498A/120 B I.P.C..
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
A complaint was filed by Smt. Khem Shree that sometime after her marriage, her husband Amar Singh started misbehaving with her, she therefore, started living with her parents; that Amar Singh has remarried with another woman; that other petitioners had instigated Amar Singh to marry with the another woman..
After the recording the evidence of the complainant and another witnesses, the learned Magistrate passed the summoning order dated 30.7.88 against the petitioners for the offences u/s 498A, 120B I.P.C.
I have perused the complaint filed y opposite party no.2 Khem Shree. The allegations against Amar Singh are that he started misbehaving with the complainant, Khem Shree, therefore, the complainant started living with her parents; that Amar Singh had remarried with Parvati on 20.3.86 in collusion with the some other petitioners. The learned Magistrate issued summoning order for offences u/s 498A, 120B I.P.C. No facts have stated in the complainant showing the conspiracy of other persons regarding the marriage of Amar Singh with Parvati. Mere participation in the second marriage, does not mean that the participants had prior knowledge that Amar Singh was already married with the complainant, and was going to marry with another woman.
The summoning order dated 30.7 88 issued against the petitioners 2 to 11, is nothing but is abuse to the process of law. Hence the impugned order dated 30.7.88 issuing process against the petitioners no. 2 to 11 is hereby quashed.
The revision is partly allowed. The revision against the order dated 30.7.88, in so far as it relates to Amar Singh, is dismissed.
Communicate this order to the courts below within 3 weeks.
Criminal Revision No. 308 of 1990
Mohd.Furqan.. Vs.. State of U.P. and another
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.1.1990 passed by the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 213/88, whereby he has allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate discharging the accused for the offences u/s 408,468,420 I.P.C.
The facts briefly stated are that Mohan Singh, opposite party no.2, has a firm in Moradabad having two accounts in the bank. The petitioner Mohd.Furqan was an employee of the said firm of opposite party no.2, that a aBank Draf of Rs. 24,000/- was given to the applicant toget it deposited in account no.1150, that the revisionist instead of getting it deposited in the account no.1150, deposited the said amount in account no.1662 which was being operated by the revisioinist himself Mohd.Furqan, that on 9.10.85 Mohd.Furqan without presuming that the matter will not be known to the complainant. Next dated he deposited Rs.9000, that when this fact came to the notice of the complainant Sri R.N.Grover ( the Manager of the another Branch) of the complainants he preared the papers for termination of the Mohd.Furqan, that Mohd.Furqan stole the said termination letter. Mohd.Furqan has submitted forged pay-in-slip on 9.10.85 counterfoils. Lastly he stole ceiling fans and also many valuable papers.
Despite the aforesaid allegations, the Magistrate discharged the revisionist by his order dated 22.4.88. The complainant, therefore, filed criminal revision no.213/88 which was allowed and the Magistrate's order discharging the revisionist was set aside.
Feeling aggrieved by the revision court's order , the revisionist has come up before this Court in this present revision.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the matter relates financial transaction and, therefore, was a purely civil nature and thatno civil suit was filed for the recovery, if any, Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated in the matters which are exclusively of civil nature.
The revisionist Furqan was an Assistant Manager in the complainant's branch situated at Moradabad. It is clear from the allegations made in the complainant that he misused his position and has acted upon the directions of the complainants and got deposited the amount in the account which being operated by him. Thereafter he withdrew Rs.15,000/- and the next day deposited only Rs.9,000/-. He filed the forged counterfoil of the bank receipts. . The matter is not exclusively of civil nature but according to the allegations made in the complaint it is an element of dishonest intention. The filing of the complaint or initiation of the complaint proceedings on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint was not erroneous. The Additional Sessions judge, Moradabad committed an error in allowing the revision and reversing the order passed by the learned Magistrate. There is nothing to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
The revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.