PREMGIRI Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-134
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
September 18,2019
Premgiri
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U P
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
WARYAM SINGH VS. AMARNATH [REFERRED TO]NIBARAN CHANDRA BAG VS. MAHENDRA NATH CHUGHUL DECEASED AFTER HIM HIS HEIR AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YUNUS VS. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQIM [REFERRED TO]
RENA DREGO VS. LALCHAND SONI [REFERRED TO]
AJAIB SINGH VS. SIRHIND CO OPERATIVE MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HIMMAT SINGH CHAHAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN AMBA PRASAD AGNIHOTRI VS. BHASKAR BALWANT AHER DEAD [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. I O B STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJENDRA PRABHU [REFERRED TO]
SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAZAK VS. MANGESH RAJARAM WAGLE [REFERRED TO]
SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL [REFERRED TO]
TGN KUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
COMMANDANT 22 BATTALION VS. SURINDER KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Raj Beer Singh, J. -
(1.)Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.)The present misc. petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 635 of 2016 as well as for quashing the order dated 02.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 160 of 2017, police station Mahavan, district Mathura.
(3.)Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has lodged an FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and one Rakesh Giri mainly alleging that petitioner was not mentally well and on 18.11.2012, accused persons named in the FIR, kidnapped him and getting him intoxicated, they got executed sale deed of his land by way of fraud and conspiracy. After investigation, police have filed final report alleging that no case was made out against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Rakesh Giri. Petitioner preferred the protest petition against final report, which was registered as a complaint case and petitioner was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses, namely, PW-1 Guddo Devi and PW-2 Ram Babu Giri were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter vide impugned order dated 23.05.2017 only Rakesh Giri was summoned under Section 420 IPC.
(2.)The present misc. petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 635 of 2016 as well as for quashing the order dated 02.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 160 of 2017, police station Mahavan, district Mathura.
(3.)Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has lodged an FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and one Rakesh Giri mainly alleging that petitioner was not mentally well and on 18.11.2012, accused persons named in the FIR, kidnapped him and getting him intoxicated, they got executed sale deed of his land by way of fraud and conspiracy. After investigation, police have filed final report alleging that no case was made out against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Rakesh Giri. Petitioner preferred the protest petition against final report, which was registered as a complaint case and petitioner was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses, namely, PW-1 Guddo Devi and PW-2 Ram Babu Giri were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter vide impugned order dated 23.05.2017 only Rakesh Giri was summoned under Section 420 IPC.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.