SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 4271

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J
UMA SHANKAR SINGH AND 10 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
A482/2704/2023



Court No. - 87

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2704 of 2023

Applicant :- Uma Shankar Singh And 10 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the

order dated 30.9.2022 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Court No.3, Ballia on Application No.96 Kha filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. in

Session Trial No.12 of 2015 (State Vs. Ramdev Ram and others), arising out of

Case Crime No.38 of 2010, under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471

IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police

Station Kotwali, District Ballia, pending in the aforesaid court.

2. The complainant, Dev Nandan son of Hari Narain, who claims himself to be the

proprietor of Dev Construction Company, had given a complaint to the

Secretary/Manager of the District Cooperative Bank, Bhrigu Ashram, Ballia

alleging that some imposter had opened the account in the name of Dev

Construction Company in District Cooperative Bank, Bhrigu Ashram, Ballia and

the entire money was withdrawn by the said imposter fraudulently. The bank

conducted a detailed enquiry and a direction was issued to the Branch Manager for

lodging an FIR.

3. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the FIR was registered at Police Station

Kotwali, District Ballia at Case Crime No.38 of 2010, under Section 409 IPC by

Rama Shanker Rai, a bank official on 21.5.2010. The FIR would disclose that one

Ajay Kumar Sharma, Son of Akshaya Lal Sharma had opened the account in the

name of Dev Construction Company and had withdrawn the deposited amount.

4. Petitioner no.1 is a apolitical activist and a business man. He is sitting Member

of Legislative Assembly from Rasra Constituency of District Ballia and is engaged

in several social activities for upliftment of poor people, such as solemnizing

marriages of poor couples and engaging them in employment and distribution of

food grains to the needy poor people. It is also said that during COVID-19

pandemic, petitioner no.1 made available about 500 oxygen cylinders along with its

accessories to the District Hospital, Ballia from his own resources. He is a reputed

man and commands respect in every walk of life. The complainant is also in

construction business and he carries out the construction work and take contracts in

the name of his proprietorship of Dev Construction Company.

5. It is said that Dev Nandan, sole proprietor of Dev Construction Company, under

the influence of his father, who was a Minister, had opened an account in the

District Cooperative Bank, Ballia. It is said that Dev Nandan had withdrawn the

amounts from the bank, which was deposited in the said account in respect of the

payment received for construction work carried out by Dev Construction Company.

The account opened in the District Cooperative Bank, Bhrigu Ashram, Ballia was

closed on 4.10.2004 and, thereafter, no transaction was made from the said account.

It is said that the complaint regarding fraudulent withdrawal of amount from the

said account of Dev Construction Company was made on 30.10.2008 by Dev

Nandan i.e. after four years from the date of closing down the account.

6. On this complaint, an enquiry was conducted by the bank and the matter was

transferred to the CBCID for investigation. The CBCID after investigating the

offence, filed charge sheet under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471

IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Cognizance

was taken on the charge sheet and the petitioners were summoned to face the trial.

The petitioners obtained bail from the learned trial court itself.

7. It is further said that the complainant and the accused named in the FIR,

thereafter, had settled the dispute amicably and the complainant gave an affidavit in

the trial court stating that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top