Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH PD.TRIPATHI versus STATE OF UP & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdish Pd.Tripathi v. State Of Up & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3115 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 7372 (23 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. 3115 of 1988

Jagdish Prasad Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others.

----------

Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi, J.

This is a petition under section under section 482 Cr.P.C.  to quash the summoning order dated 23.2.1987 whereby the petitioner was summoned for the offence under section 420, 468, 467 and 120 -B I.P.C.

The allegations in the F.I.R. lodged by the Manager of the School are that the applicant without any authority withdrew the amount of Rs. 2330/- from the Bank account of the School; that the petitioner was not working as Principal of the School.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was suspended but the suspension was revoked by the District Inspector of Schools; that by order dated 24.1.1985 the High Court in another petition authorised the petitioner for his salary as Principal; that the petitioner as Principal withdrew the said amount from 22.4.85 to 22.5.85; that there are no allegation  that the petitioner caused wrongful loss to any person or had any wrongful gain; that there is no allegation  that the amount withdrawn was misappropriated or was misutilised by the petitioner.; that the witnesses during the investigation stated that the F.I.R. was lodged by the Manager of the School due to a dispute between the management and the Principal. The petitioner's counsel,  regarding the petitioner authority to withdraw the amount from the Bank, argued that since he was getting salary of the Principal hence he withdrew the amount as Principal with fair and bonafide intention and did not misappropriate the same.

There are rival claims regarding the petitioner's authority to withdraw the amount from the Bank, therefore, this Court cannot enter into an inquiry whether the petitioner was or was not authorised to withdraw the amount from the Bank. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.  It is,  therefore,  dismissed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

However it is directed that at the time of framing of charge the trial court will take into account whether the elements, necessary for framing of charges, transpire from the evidence or not.

Dt. 23.4.2007

Sh  

 


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.