Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amar Singh v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8671 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 7264 (20 April 2007)

 

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.11.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 8671 of 1988

Amar Singh and others.. Vs.. State of U.P. and another

                                                           ......

Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi,J.

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.

Dt/20.4.2007

MM8671-88

Court No.11.

Criminal Revision No. 308 of 1990

Mohd.Furqan.. Vs.. State of U.P. and another

                                                           ......

Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi,J.

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.

Dt/20.4.2007

MM  


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.