Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 420, 467, 468, 506 I.P.C.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 420, 467, 468, 506 I.P.C.
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Dhiresh Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another

    Court No. - 41

    Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12480 of 2015

    Applicant :- Dhiresh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

    Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

    Heard learned counsel for the applicant; the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

    The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur whereby the court below has rejected the final report and has summoned the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506 I.P.C. in connection with Case Crime No. 544 of 2005, P.S. Tilhar, district Shajahanpur. The applicant has also challenged the non-bailalbe warrant issued against him on 25.05.2012.

    The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Court while taking cognizance on the final report has also considered the protest petition and, therefore, the cognizance on the final report is not legally justified in view of the settled procedure that either the Magistrate should take cognizance on the police report or on the protest petition by treating the same as a complaint after following the complaint case procedure.

    I have carefully perused the order 13.04.2010.

    A perusal of the order reveals that the Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of the material available in the case diary. In view of the above, the prayer of the applicant to quash the order dated 13.04.2010 cannot be accepted.

    So far as the prayer of the applicant to quash the non-bailable warrant dated 25.05.2012 is concerned, the same cannot also be accepted because the applicant had admittedly remained absent from the proceeding despite having been summoned by the court below.

    In view of the above, the application is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, within two weeks from today and in the event, he does so, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

    Order Date :- 7.5.2015 Sunil Kr Tiwari

    Neutral Citation No. - 2015:AHC:64413

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Dhiresh Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another
    (May 7, 2015)