Application No. 13261 of 2017. Case: Rama Shanker Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another. Allahabad High Court

Case NumberApplication No. 13261 of 2017
CounselFor Appellant: Bijai Prakash Tiwari, Adv.
JudgesSurya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
IssueIndian Penal Code - Sections 406, 420; Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482
Judgement DateMay 09, 2017
CourtAllahabad High Court


Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.

It appears that in Complaint Case No.2019 of 2012 (Srikant Awasthi vs. Ramakant Pandey and others), under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, ten persons were accused vide order dated 11.09.2013. The accused were summoned under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. It appears that three accused namely Punit Kumar Malviya, Ram Sewak Shukla and Rohit Malviya, have filed Application U/S 482 No.2014 of 2014 to challenge the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case. The said Application U/S 482 No.2014 of 2014 was disposed of by this court by order dated 21.01.2014 as under:

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the delayed complaint has been lodged. Even if version of the applicants is accepted, the suit filed by grand-father of the complainant was decreed on 11.8.1972 with regard to the plot nos. 596 and 601, however, no application was moved for execution of the decree. The present complaint has been filed by the grandson of the then alleged plaintiff. The land was already transferred. Applicant no. 1 is bona fide purchaser, while, applicant nos. 2 and 3 are not concerned with that property, even the complaint has been lodged against them. Even from perusal of the complaint, it is clear that no offence is made out. If there was any decree and that was not got executed, after three years, no application can be moved for execution of the decree.

Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer.

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. If the contension of the applicants is correct then no offence is made out. However, these facts are required to be examined by the court concerned at appropriate stage, in accordance with law on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Hence, no interference is required at this initial stage.

However, if discharge application is moved by the applicants through counsel within 30 days before the court concerned, it is expected that the same shall be considered, expeditiously, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law. For a period of 30 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Complaint Case No. 2019 of 2012 (Sri Kant Awasthi Vs. Rama Kant Pandey and Others), under Section 420/406 IPC, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

With aforesaid...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT