CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Jai Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 11 January 2012 · Citation: (2012) 01 AHC CK 0237

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 409
CASE NUMBER
Application No. 42066 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 353 words

Hon''ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2.

This Crl. Misc. application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing the impugned orders dated 25.10.2009 of charge sheet No. 272 of 2009 as well as entire proceedings registered in its pursuance as Criminal Case No. 206 of 2011, State of U.P. Vs. Jain Prakash Singh, u/s 409 IPC, P.S. Badhapur, (arising out of case crime No. 612 of 2009) pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Nagana, District Bijnor.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per allegation, the applicant is working as salesman in the Co-operative Society, at the time of checking shortage was found of 13 bags of N.P.K., Fertilizer to the tune of Rs. 4992/- , on that ground FIR was lodged on 19th August, 2009. There was no embezzlement against the applicant, without giving any opportunity hearing and without giving any notice, FIR was lodged. Even, notice was not issued for recovery of the amount. The applicant has remitted a draft for a sum of Rs. 4992/- to the name of Secretary, Co-operative Society. However, it was not deposited on the ground that applicant was expected to deposit it in cash not through draft. Hence impugned order as well as proceeding are liable to be quashed.

4.

Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since prima facie commission of offence is disclosed, hence no interference is required in the impugned order u/s 482 Cr.P.C. However, if the applicant will appear and move bail application within 3 weeks from today, the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, in accordance with law, in view of guide lines by Full Bench decision of High Court in case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .

6.

With these observations, application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off finally.