Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. ZAFAR versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohd. Zafar v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 17340 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6581 (29 November 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, brief holder of Km. Satya Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet no. 232 of 2004 in Crime NO. 13 of 2003 under Sections 420, 467, 471, 419, 504, 506 IPC pending in the Court of C.J.M.,Varanasi.

The contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is that applicant has been wrongly implicated in this case on the basis of complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after  investigation charge sheet has been submitted without there being any evidence against the applicant. He has contended that Mohd. Haleem has filed a civil suit against opposite party no. 2 and four  others for declaration of his title over the house in question. According to the complainant opposite party no. 2 the accused pretending that the property belonging to her got some fictitious person and the sale deed was executed on 13.2.1986. The complainant has further contended that she had no concern with the house that was transferred under the sale deed. Objections as raised by the learned counsel for the accused applicant are factual in nature and can be raised in the trail Court at appropriate stage. At this stage, I do not find any  ground to  quash the charge sheet in question. In the circumstances, application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Application is hereby dismissed.

Dated: 29.11.2005

RKS/17340/05


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.