Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANJEEV KALRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sanjeev Kalra v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 6057 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 17714 (13 October 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. 6057 of 2005

Sanjeev  Kalra   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 criminal case no. 450 of 2004,  Manjeet Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kalra, pending  in the Court of   the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.6, Jhansi .

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State  and learned counsel  for  opposite party no. 2 at length.

The  facts relevant for disposal of this  application are that  the complainant  opposite party  no. 2  filed a complaint  against the accused applicant  Sanjeev Kalra with these allegations that  he is Resident of  393/15 Premganj,Sipari Bazar, Jhansi, and the marriage of   Smt. Sangeeta Chhabra , sister of  the accused  had taken place  with    his son Harmindar Singh Chhabara  in year 1999. The accused came to the house  of the complainant  on 19.9.2002 and said that  his mother  Smt.  Mohini Kalra  had suddenly  fallen ill and the operation of  her  appendix  was to be performed  and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was  required for this purpose, and he would return this amount within  a period of one month. The complainant  after believing him gave  this amount  vide  Bank Draft   No. 196232 for  Rs. 15,000/-  dated 19.9.2002  issued by the State Bank of India , Sipri  Bazar,Tandon Road, Jhansi. After lapse of  some  time the complainant went to  Lucknow   for seeing    ailing mother of the accused  and then he came to know that  neither she was  ill nor her  operation  had taken place .Then  he told  the  mother of the accused  in his presence   that the accused  had taken  Rs. 15,000/-  from him  on 19.9.2002  for  her  operation . Then  the  accused as well  as his  mother  requested  for    some time and  promised  to pay  back  the money  to  the complainant  soon, but  he  did not receive back  the  money. Then  the complainant   sent a notice  through Advocate but of no avail. Then he filed   the complaint  under section 420 and 406 I.P.C.

Learned Magistrate, after  taking  the evidence of the complainant  and the statements of the witnesses  under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.  and after  perusing other documents and evidence, was of the  view that   prima facie  case under sections 420  I.P.C.  against the   accused    was  made  , hence he  summoned   the accused. Aggrieved with that  order the accused  have  filed this application  under  section 482  Cr. P.C.

The applicant  Sanjeev Kalra has alleged in his affidavit   in support of the application  that at the time of marriage of  his sister  sufficient dowry was  given  but the complainant  and  his family members  were not satisfied  and after  death of  Hrmindar Singh (  husband of his sister ) the complainant asked  his sister to  remarry   her  Jeth  but  her sister refused to do so .Then  she was tortured   by the complainant and   his family members .Then   he  brought  his sister back to his  house at Lucknow . Actually   Harmindar Singh (  brother in law of the accused applicant)  who was running a medical shop  had  loss in  his business,  so  he was in  the need of  money  and on his demand  the mother of the accused applicant had given Rs. 30,000/-  to Harmindar Singh  and  this Bank Draft  of Rs. 15000/-  was given to him as  part payment of the amount given to  Harmindar Singh .

The complainant filed  counter affidavit  and thereafter rejoinder affidavit was also filed  from the side of the accused applicant.

Having heard heard both the parties  at length  and   after perusal of the  record, I find no legal error  in the order  passed by the learned Magistrate  summoning the accused applicant. The pleas taken  by the accused applicant  in the  affidavit filed in support of  this  application   under section 482 Cr.P.C.  as well as in the rejoinder affidavit are all factual  and they can be taken  before the Magistrate  where  the case is pending. The accused applicant is   allowed  one month's time to  appear before the Magistrate concerned  and  during this period  the execution of  non bailable warrant against the accused applicant  shall remain stayed  so  as to enable  him to    appear   before the court concerned. The accused  applicant, after  putting  in  appearance  before the court,  may apply for bail  and   his  bail  application shall be  decided  by the Court  expeditiously, if possible on the same day, taking into consideration  the directions of this Court  in the  case of Amrawati Devi  Vs. State of  U. P. [2004(ACJ) 1846].

With the above  observations the application  under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands  disposed of.

Dated:13.10.2006

MLK


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.