Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Sayeed Ahmad and Another - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 23735 of 2022 Connected with Application U/S 482 No. 13494 of 2021
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 32, 226, 136 and 142 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 482 and 156(3) – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 406, 420, 365, 347, 386, 506,467, 468, 471 and 120-B – Cheating and dishonesty – Criminal breach of trust – Held, Court earlier in its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge-sheet quashing of the summoning order and then filed another application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order by Sessions Judge concerned in a Criminal Revision challenging order meantime he had filed an application in the second 482 Cr.P.C. petition with prayer to dismiss it as withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh petition by stating affidavit of it that it has typographical and clerical errors for which correction is not possible and even before it had approached the Apex Court for expediting hearing of first 482 Cr.P.C. petition which was allowed and directions were issued for it - Applicant impatently did not wait for the logical conclusion of one petition filed by him despite an order of the Apex Court in a petition filed by applicant himself but filed an application for withdrawing it with liberty to file a better petition and without even awaiting for the disposal of the said withdrawl application preferred a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge stating in para 6 of a passing reference of pendency of a 482 Cr.P.C. petition before this Court and then after dismissal of his revision filed another 482 Cr.P.C - filing of the Criminal Revision before Sessions Judge was not with full and complete disclosure of relevant and material facts of the matter. The details of the 482 Cr.P.C., the order of the Apex Court - Applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands rejected
JUDGMENT :
1. The present two applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are connected together as they are of the same accused in the same case and as such are being decided together by a common judgement.
2. The applicant Sayeed Ahmad initially filed a Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021 (Sayeed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another) with the following prayers :-
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 0734 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad, during the pendency of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C."
3. The applicant Sayeed Ahmad also filed another Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23735 of 2022 (Sayeed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another) with the following prayers :-
It is further prayed that further proceedings in Case No. 05 of 2020 (State Vs. Sayeed Ahmad) arising out of Case Crime No. 0734 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad pending in the court of CJM, Allahabad be stayed during the pendency of this application before this Hon'ble Court."
4. The facts arising in the present case in brief are that a FIR was lodged on 25.11.2017 by Nabi Bakhsh as Case Crime No. 734 of 2017 under Sections 406, 420 IPC against Sayeed Ahmad (the present applicant), Kavi Ahmad S/o Sayeed Ahmad and Shameem Ahmad. The allegation in the same was that from 15.05.2008 to 08.06.2008, the first informant purchased the property from Sayeed Ahmad for which he gave several cheques from different bank accounts of different accounts totalling Rs. 80 lakhs. When the first informant requested the applicant to execute a sale-deed for the same, he continued delaying it on one or the other pretext. Subsequently when he demanded back his money, he was threatened. After fixing the deal with the applicant, the said land was decided to be sold to one Sardar Jogendar Singh of Hotel Milan and advance money was taken by the accused and with an intention to cheat, he is trying to get a map sanctioned for getting a building constructed. He has also got an agreement to sale executed and registered with other persons. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 23.06.2019 was submitted under Section 406 IPC against the applicant Sayeed Ahmad. In so far as Kavi Ahmad and Shameem Ahmad are concerned, they were the accused persons not charge sheeted and their names were in column 12 of the charge sheet. The trial court subsequently on 27.11.2020 took cognizance upon the charge sheet and summoned the accused applicant under Section 406 IPC. Subsequently a supplementary charge sheet dated 07.03.2021 was submitted against the applicant adding Section 420 IPC also. The applicant moved an application being paper no. 16-Kha before the concerned court challenging the validity of the second charge sheet. The present petitions have thus been filed with the prayers as stated above. The applicant is shown to be involved in 11 other criminal cases which have been disclosed and explained in para 37 of the affidavit filed in support of the connected Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021, the same is quoted here-in-be
Repeated applications for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable without new circumstances, as they constitute an abuse of process and forum shopping.
Point of Law : Allegations made in complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the basi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that litigants must act fairly and not abuse the process of the court by concealing material facts or filing repetitive petitions after the dismiss....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
