# Lalman & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 167
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-18
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 776 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalman-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46727
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 420 - Cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of cheating,
Sections
467
-
forgery
for
valuable
security,will etc. , Sections 468 - forgery
for purpose of cheating , Sections 471 -
using as genuine a forged document or
electronic
record,
Code
of
criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 239 - when
accused shall be discharged .

(B) Criminal Law - Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 219 - Three
offences of same kind within year may be
charged together, Sections 220 - trial for
more than one offence, Section 300 -
Person once convicted or acquitted not to
be tried for same offence - The two
criminal cases against the same execution
of same sale deed dated 3.11.2016 and
charge sheet submitted in both the cases
are
not
suffering
from
the
vice
of
sameness. (Para -13)

Application for discharge under Section 239
Cr.P.C. placed before the Court of Magistrate on
7.1.2019 by the present accused applicants
alongwith
other
co-accused
-

availed
opportunity of hearing - they had not proposed
any evidence in their favour - only ground setforth for their discharge - one crime case in
relation with the same sale deed has again been
made subject matter of the present Case Crime
lodged by the opposite party no.2 . (Para -13)

HELD:- No instance of abuse of power or error
of law particularly as to the lack of allegations
which constituted an offence committed by the
applicants against the opposite party no.2, the
complainant of the Case Crime No.30/2019,
there is no reason to interfere in both the
impugned
order
dated
21.1.2020
and
16.12.2020 passed by the court's below under
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.. The applicants wants
only to stifle the proceeding of the case
genuinely filed and legally running, therefore,
the extraordinary inherent power of the court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised
to fulfill his purpose. (Para -17,18)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

2 All. Lalman & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
167
be permitted to stifle the proceeding
without any reasonable cause. They may
also not be permitted to fill up any lacuna
in their defence particularly when the trial
court in it's order impugned in the
application has left open the room for
exercise of it's discretion vested in it under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. if it feels necessary, in
the course of delivering it's judgment. The
applicant's unnecessary attempt and intent
to get retrial is not justified.

19. At this stage, when the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
lacking any prominent issue which need be
proved with the help of evidence and
witnesses sought to be summoned as well
as for lack of pleading as to reasonable
apprehension, if their move under Section
311 Cr.P.C., not allowed what adverse
effect would occasion, entailing gross
injustice to them, this Court does not find
any force in the application to interfere
with the proceedings of court below.

20. On the basis of discussions made
hereinabove, the applicants' application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is REJECTED.

21. Deputy Registrar (Criminal) is
directed to inform the result of the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
forthwith through e-mail or other ways to
learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Court No.3, Faizabad forthwith.
----------
(2021)02ILR A167
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 776 of 2021
Lalman & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Nijam Ahamad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.
(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 420 - Cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of cheating,
Sections
467
-
forgery
for
valuable
security,will etc. , Sections 468 - forgery
for purpose of cheating , Sections 471 -
using as genuine a forged document or
electronic
record,
Code
of
criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 239 - when
accused shall be discharged .

(B) Criminal Law - Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 219 - Three
offences of same kind within year may be
charged together, Sections 220 - trial for
more than one offence, Section 300 -
Person once convicted or acquitted not to
be tried for same offence - The two
criminal cases against the same execution
of same sale deed dated 3.11.2016 and
charge sheet submitted in both the cases
are
not
suffering
from
the
vice
of
sameness. (Para -13)

Application for discharge under Section 239
Cr.P.C. placed before the Court of Magistrate on
7.1.2019 by the present accused applicants
alongwith
other
co-accused
-

availed
opportunity of hearing - they had not proposed
any evidence in their favour - only ground setforth for their discharge - one crime case in
relation with the same sale deed has again been
made subject matter of the present Case Crime
lodged by the opposite party no.2 . (Para -13)

HELD:- No instance of abuse of power or error
of law particularly as to the lack of allegations
which constituted an offence committed by the
applicants against the opposite party no.2, the
complainant of the Case Crime No.30/2019,
there is no reason to interfere in both the
impugned
order
dated
21.1.2020
and
16.12.2020 passed by the court's below under
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.. The applicants wants
only to stifle the proceeding of the case
genuinely filed and legally running, therefore,
the extraordinary inherent power of the court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised
to fulfill his purpose. (Para -17,18)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Prabhunath Yadav Vs St.of U.P. , 2008 (60)
ACC 59

2. Ramesh Singh Vs St.of Bihar , AIR 1977 (SC)
2018

3. Rajbeer Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. , 2006
(55) ACC 318 (SC)

4. Haresh & ors. Vs St. of Chattisgarh , 2009
Cr.L.J. 1383

5. St. of Raj.Vs Fateh Karan Mehdu , AIR 2017
SC 796

6. Surender Kaushik & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
, (2013) 5 SCC 148

7. Inder Mohan Goswami & anr. Vs St.of
Uttaranchal & ors. , (2007) 12 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. pressed before the
Court
by
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants, Sri Nijam Ahmad, on behalf
of the applicants - Lalman and Durga
Prasad. A copy of the application has
already been served in the office of
learned G.A., pursuant thereto learned
A.G.A. appear to protest the same.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
parties
and
perused
the
materials
available on record, the prayer made in
the application, invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of the court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is to the effect, to quash the
order dated 16.12.2020 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in
Criminal Revision No.30/2020 (Umesh
Vishwakarma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.)
and order dated 21.1.2020 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar
Nagar in Criminal Case No.4265/2019
(State Vs. Sabha Narayan & Ors.) arising
out of Case Crime No.30/2019 under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C.,
registered at Police Station- Jalalpur,
District- Ambedkar Nagar.

The Factual Matrix

4. The materials available on record
reveals that the applicant nos.1 and 2 are
amongst the accused involved in Case
Crime No.30/2019 referred hereinabove,
registered under Sections 420, 467, 468
and 471 I.P.C. The impugned order is
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Ambedkar Nagar on 21.1.2020 on an
application of the present applicants
along with the other co-accused Umesh
Vishwakarma and Narendra Dev moved
on 7.12.2019 under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
for their discharge.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
submitted
that,
the
said
application for discharge was moved
before the court, pursuant to the order of
this Court passed over application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of
the
impugned
charge
sheet
dated
10.6.2019
filed
in
Case
Crime
No.30/2019 under Sections 420, 467,
468 and 471 I.P.C., the relevant portion
of
the
said
order
is
reproduced
hereinunder:-
2 All. Lalman & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
169

"After arguing the matter up to
some length, learned counsel for the
applicants submit that he does not want to
press this application on merit and he
confines his prayer only to the extent that
applicants may be permitted to move
discharge application through counsel and
suitable directions may be issued for
expeditious disposal of the same.

Learned A.G.A. has no objection
in grant of aforesaid prayer.

In view of above, it is provided
that applicants permitted to move their
discharge application(s) through counsel
within four weeks' from today and in case
any such application(s) are being filed,
same
shall
be
heard
and
decided
expeditiously after hearing the parties, in
accordance with law, by means of a
reasoned and speaking order.

Till the aforesaid period of four
weeks' and during pendency of discharge
application, no coercive steps shall be taken
against the applicants in the aforesaid
case."

Discharge application on the
ground of sameness of matter in two
FIRs.

6. Pursuant to the above order of this
Court, discharge application dated 7.1.2019
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (Annexure
No.7), was moved before the Court of
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, where the
case was pending. The applicants set forth,
before the court, the grounds and reasons
for their discharge that there is a crime case
no.371/2016 registered under Section 420
and 465 I.P.C. already lodged in respect of
the 'sale deed dated 3.11.2016' by one
Gaurav Kumar on 26.12.2016 against the
same accused (present accused-applicants)
with the other co-accused persons in same
Police
Station-
Jalalpur,
District
-
Ambedkar Nagar. After due investigation,
charge-sheet was filed therein under
Section 420 and 465 I.P.C. which is
pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division)/Fast Track/A.C.J.M., State Vs.
Umesh Vishwakarma & Ors., bearing
Criminal Case No.192/2018. The said
criminal case is at the stage of evidence. In
the said criminal case, the charge-sheet
filed by the investigating officer contains
the name of 'Meda Devi' in the column of
witnesses,
alongwith
her
statement
recorded by the Investigating Officer under
Section 161 Cr.P.C.

7. Despite the pendency of aforesaid
criminal case, Meda Devi, the complainant
of the present case, on 2.2.2019 has filed
another criminal case in relation to the said
sale deed in question dated 3.11.2016
against the applicants and other co-accused
Sabha Narayan, Umesh Vishwakarma,
Mahendra Yadav, Narendra Dev bearing
Case Crime No.30/2019 under Section 420,
467, 468, 471 I.P.C. in Police StationJalalpur, District- Ambedkar Ngar. The
investigating officer submitted charge-sheet
dated
10.6.2019
in
the
court
after
investigation.

8. The present applicants took another
ground in their application for discharge
dated 7.1.2019 that Section 300 Cr.P.C.
provisions, no one can be punished twice
for the same offence and one cannot be
tried twice for the same offence. Moreover,
the Sections 219 and 220 Cr.P.C. provides
that if an offence is committed in the same
manner within one year, then for all such
offences only one charge should be framed
by the Court.

9. The said application for discharge
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. moved by the
present applicants through their counsel
was entertained by the Court of Judicial
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and disposed
of vide a reasoned and elaborated order on
21.1.2020 (impugned in this application).
Learned Judicial Magistrate has held that
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. at the stage of
framing the charge, the court is required to
consider the plea of accused for discharge
in the light of materials available on record.
The court is required to hear prosecution as
well as accused. If it finds the charges to be
groundless against the accused, shall
discharge him recording reasons for doing
so. Learned Judicial Magistrate further held
that when police files a final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., it means that charge
sheet contains essential allegations coupled
with prima facie evidence which, if proved,
will constitute a punishable offence.
Learned Magistrate did not find the chargesheet groundless. He has further held that at
the stage of cognizance or framing of
charge, the prosecution is not burdened to
prove the evidences sufficient to convict
the accused, and only this much is
sufficient for the prosecution that there is
prima facie evidence against the accused
persons on record. Learned court of
Magistrate further observed that in this case
at the stage of cognizance, the court has
already found prima facie evidences against
the present accused-applicants for trial and
thus have summoned them under Section
420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

10. The aforesaid order of the Judicial
Magistrate,
Ambedkar
Nagar
dated
21.1.2020, challenged in revision before
the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambedkar
Nagar who finally decided the same vide
order dated 16.12.2020, (impugned in this
application). The impugned order dated
16.12.2020 is a reasoned and speaking
order on the issue of discharge of accusedapplicants. Learned Sessions Judge in his
order dated 16.12.2020 has elaborately
discussed the scope and ambit of the
Section 239 Cr.P.C. and the extent to which
the Magistrate is required under the law in
deciding the issue of discharge. He relied
on the cases Prabhunath Yadav Vs. State
of U.P. reported in 2008 (60) ACC 59,
Ramesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported
in AIR 1977 (SC) 2018, Rajbeer Singh Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2006 (55)
ACC 318 (SC), Haresh & Ors. Vs State of
Chattisgarh reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. 1383
and State of Rajasthan Vs. Fateh Karan
Mehdu reported in AIR 2017 SC 796 and
concluded that in a criminal case charge
can be framed even on the basis of serious
suspicion against the accused and while
framing of charge, the Court is required to
consider only the evidences collected by
the prosecution, whether they are sufficient
to raise suspicion against the accused that,
the offence is committed by him. Learned
Sessions Judge in para-9 of the impugned
order has discussed the case of prosecution,
in present Case Crime No.30/2019 lodged
by Meda Devi, (the opposite party no.2).
The said opposite party no.2, Meda Devi,
who is the complainant of the case, has
reported to the police that the land
comprising Gata No.470 of area 0.003
hectare and Gata No.471 of area 0.003
hectare was purchased by her through sale
deed, executed on 31.3.1980 by Sabha
Narayan, the co-accused. On the said land,
the opposite party no.2, is in possession and
use by constructing her residential house
and resides there with family. Since
mutation proceeding was not concluded,
the
accused
Sabha
Narayan,
Umesh
Vishwakarma,
Lalman,
Durga
Prasad,
Mahendra Yadav and Narendra Dev in
collusion with each other alienated the
same land again through sale deed on
3.11.2016 deceitfully, and thus affected the
right title and interest of the complaint.
Learned Sessions Judge agreeing from the
2 All. Lalman & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
171
findings of Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar
Nagar in his order dated 21.1.2020,
observed that at this stage, atleast the
statement of complainant of the case stands
unrebutted as well as the two sale deeds of
same property in question also stand
unrebutted, therefore, the facts, materials
and the circumstances of the present
Criminal Case No.30-2019, prima facie
stands
triable
against
the
revisionist
accused separately than that of the criminal
case lodged by Gaurav Kumar in Case
Crime No.371/2016.

Whether the impugned orders
of court below suffer from any vice.

11. On the above discussion, learned
court of revision found that there are strong
ground to frame charges against the
accused persons. Both the impugned orders
dated 21.1.2020 passed by learned court of
Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and
that passed in revision by the Court of
Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar on
16.12.2020 are well reasoned and speaking
orders, in conformity with the requirement
of law as provisioned under Section 239
Cr.P.C. Section 239 Cr.P.C. runs as under:-

"239. When accused shall be
discharged. If, upon considering the police
report and the documents sent with it under
section 173 and making such examination,
if any, of the accused as the Magistrate
thinks necessary and after giving the
prosecution and the accused an opportunity
of being heard, the Magistrate considers
the charge against the accused to be
groundless, he shall discharge the accused,
and record his reasons for so doing."

12. The present case instituted on the
basis of police report, therefore, the trial is
to run under the provision of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 from Section 238 to
243 Cr.P.C. Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
provides that before framing of charges
against the accused person, he can be
discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C. From
its bare reading, the essential ingredients
for discharge are obviously as follows:-

The court have to consider the
charge sheet and documents appended
thereto by the police under Section 173
Cr.P.C.

The Magistrate may if deems fit
examine
the
accused,
thereafter,
the
arguments of both the sides namely the
prosecution and the accused should be
heard. If the court finds the ground against
the accused are baseless and there is no
evidence available against the accused. In
other words the court considers prima facie
case against the accused then the accused.

13. In the present case, the application
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was placed
before the Court of Magistrate on 7.1.2019,
by the present accused applicants alongwith
other co-accused, they availed opportunity
of hearing, they had not proposed any
evidence in their favour. However, the only
ground set-forth for their discharge is that
one crime case bearing no.371/2016 lodged
by Gaurav Kumar in relation with the same
sale deed dated 3.11.2016 has again been
made subject matter of the present Case
Crime No.30/2019 lodged by the opposite
party no.2, Meda Devi. The application
itself made it clear that by virtue of
execution of sale deed dated 3.11.2016
which is forged and deceitful as alleged by
Gaurav Kumar, because the boundary of
land comprising his shops sold to him
earlier in the year 1980, is also included in
the subsequent sale deed dated 3.11.2016.
Likewise, Meda Devi also is aggrieved
independently, from the sale deed dated
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3.11.2016 as the land, purchased by her
from the accused, Sabha Narayan in the
year 1980 through a duly registered sale
deed, has again been included in the sale
deed 3.11.2016. As such Gaurav Kumar
and Meda Devi both are aggrieved from the
deceitful execution of sale deed dated
3.11.2016 by the accused Sabha Narayan,
independently
and,
they
have
their
independent, separate and individual right
to protect their property, vested in them,
against the criminal act of execution of sale
deed dated 3.11.2016 deceitfully by the
accused-applicants. In the case of Gaurav
Kumar, charge sheet has already been
submitted, the accused have put their
appearance in that case, which is being
posted at the stage of evidence. The Case
Crime No.30/2019 lodged by the opposite
party no.2, Meda Devi is also an
independent case, the charge sheet has been
submitted after due investigation and the
courts below have concurrently found
sufficient ground for framing of charges, so
as to commence the trial. They have
committed no wrong, there is no illegality.
The two criminal cases against the same
execution
of
same
sale
deed
dated
3.11.2016 and charge sheet submitted in
both the cases are not suffering from the
vice of sameness.

14. In a case having similar
circumstance, 'Surender Kaushik & Ors.
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' reported in 2013
(5) SCC 148, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
its para-25 observed as under:-

"25. In the case at hand, the
appellants lodged the FIR No. 274 of 2012
against four accused persons alleging that
they had prepared fake and fraudulent
documents. The second FIR came to be
registered on the basis of the direction
issued by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate in exercise of power
under Section 156(3) of the Code at the
instance of another person alleging, inter
alia, that he was neither present in the
meetings nor had he signed any of the
resolutions of the meetings and the accused
persons, five in number, including the
appellant No. 1 herein, had fabricated
documents and filed the same before the
competent authority. FIR No. 442 of 2012
(which gave rise to Crime No. 491 of 2012)
was registered because of an order passed
by the learned Magistrate. Be it noted, the
complaint was filed by another member of
the Governing Body of the Society and the
allegation was that the accused persons,
twelve in number, had entered into a
conspiracy and prepared forged documents
relating to the meetings held on different
dates. There was allegation of fabrication
of the signatures of the members and filing
of forged documents before the Registrar of
Societies with the common intention to
grab the property/funds of the Society. If
the involvement of the number of accused
persons and the nature of the allegations
are scrutinized, it becomes crystal clear
that every FIR has a different spectrum.
The allegations made are distinct and
separate. It may be regarded as a counter
complaint and cannot be stated that an
effort has been made to improve the
allegations that find place in the first FIR.
It is well-nigh impossible to say that the
principle of sameness gets attracted. We
are inclined to think so, for if the said
principle is made applicable to the case at
hand and the investigation is scuttled by
quashing the FIRs, the complainants in the
other two FIRs would be deprived of
justice. The appellants have lodged the FIR
making the allegations against certain
persons, but that does not debar the other
aggrieved persons to move the court for
direction of registration of an FIR as there
2 All. Lalman & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
173
have been other accused persons including
the complainant in the first FIR involved in
the forgery and fabrication of documents
and getting benefits from the statutory
authority. In the ultimate eventuate, how
the
trial
would
commence
and
be
concluded is up to the concerned court. The
appellants or any of the other complainants
or the accused persons may move the
appropriate court for a trial in one court.
That is another aspect altogether. But to
say that it is a second FIR relating to the
same cause of action and the same incident
and there is sameness of occurrence and an
attempt has been made to improvise the
case is not correct. Hence, we conclude and
hold that the submission that the FIR
lodged by the fourth respondent is a second
FIR and is, therefore, liable to be quashed,
does not merit acceptance."

15. The learned counsel for the
applicants could not succeed in bringing the
impugned orders in the ambit of abuse of
power or suffering from any legal bar so as to
invoke the extraordinary inherent power of
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs.
State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in
(2007) 12 SCC 1, in paragraph nos.26 and 27
held as under:-

26. "In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of
Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, this
Court summarized some categories of cases
where inherent power can and should be
exercised to quash the proceedings:-

(i) where it manifestly appears that
there is a legal bar against the institution or
continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where the allegations in the
first information report or complaint taken
at their fact value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged.

(iii)
where
the
allegations
constitute an offence, but there is no legal
evidence adduced or the evidence adduced
clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge."

27. The powers possessed by the
High Court under section 482 of the Code
are very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise.
The court must be careful to see that its
decision in exercise of this power is based
on sound principles. The inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The
High Court
should
normally refrain from giving a prima facie
decision in a case where all the facts are
incomplete and hazy; more so, when the
evidence has not been collected and
produced before the court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of
such magnitude that they cannot be seen in
their true perspective without sufficient
material. Of course, no hard and fast rule
can be laid down in regard to cases in
which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceedings at any stage."

17.
 On
the discussions
made
hereinabove, when the learned counsel for
the applicants has not shown the instance of
abuse of power or error of law particularly
as to the lack of allegations which
constituted an offence committed by the
applicants against the opposite party no.2,
the complainant of the Case Crime
No.30/2019, there is no reason to interfere
in both the impugned order dated 21.1.2020
and 16.12.2020 passed by the court's below
under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

18. The applicants wants only to stifle
the proceeding of the case genuinely filed
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
legally
running,
therefore,
the
extraordinary inherent power of the court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercised to fulfill his purpose, the
application is therefore, REJECTED and
disposed of finally.

19. The Deputy Registrar (Criminal)
is directed to communicate the order of
Court immediately through e-mail to the
trial court through the District and Session
Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in addition to
ordinary
course
of
communication
forthwith.
----------
(2021)02ILR A174
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 3104 of 2019

Arun Kumar Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amit Chaudhary, Sukumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Arun Sinha, Siddhartha Sinha

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 465 - punishment for
forgery , Sections 420 - Cheating and
dishonestly inducing deliverey of property,
Sections 468 - forgery for cheating,
Sections 471 - using as genuine a forged
document or electronic record , Sections
504 - intentional insult with intent to
provoke breach of the peace , Sections
506
-
punishment
for
criminal
intimidation, Sections 406 - punishment
for criminal breach of trust - Criminal
Court after passing the judgment or final
order disposing the case can not alter or
review the same except to correct the
clerical or arithmetical error . (Para - 8)

Petitioner (complainant) lodged an F.I.R.
against the (opposite party no. 2) & two
other persons - for not giving possession of
flat
purchased
from
opposite
no.
2
-
investigation - charge sheet submitted -
cognizance taken - opposite party no. 2 filed
a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against
that order - Court stayed the coercive
measures against the accused-applicant -
direction to pass the order afresh - passed a
fresh order taking cognizance - summoned
the accused-applicant to face trial - fixed
date for appearance of the accused - accused
did not appear on the said date - on the next
date moved an application for recall of the
order - Learned C.J.M. on the application so
moved passed an order dated 17.10.2018
staying the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by
him.(Para -2)

HELD:- By the impugned order, learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate has stayed the order of
taking
cognizance
passed
by
him
on
14.08.2018, which is not permissible under
the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure,
hence the impugned order deserves to be
quashed. (Para - 8)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

Sanjeev Kapoor Vs Chandana Kapoor & ors.,
Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2020 (Arising out of
SLP (CRL) No. 1041 of 2020)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. This petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) has been
filed by the petitioner Arun Kumar Gupta
(complainant) for quashing the order dated
17.10.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.
0101210/2014, arising out of Case Crime
No. 515/2014, (State of UP Versus Alok
Kumar Gupta), under Sections 465, 420,