Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2012 (ALL)

Munna Ansari v. State Of U. P.

2010-07-12

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2010
Ashwani Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent no.2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.1.2008 and the proceedings in case no.33/08(State v. Munna) under sections 419/420/467/468/471 I.P.C., P.S.Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the allegations in the charge sheet reveal that the matter is of civil nature, as such, no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the applicants and the impugned order dated 28.1.2008 and the proceedings in case no.33/08 be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the allegations levelled against the applicants and the evidence on record make out a clear case against them under sections 419/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2009(67) ACC 679; G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., reported in 2000(2) SCC 636 = 2000(40) ACC 501 (SC) and Indian Oil Corporation v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd., 2006(44) AIC 37(SC) = 2006 (56) ACC 249 = 2006(6) SCC 736 . 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 5. In the present case, it has only been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that since civil dispute is pending, hence this petition be allowed and the proceedings be quashed. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar(Supra) has held in paragraph 6 of the report as under : ".........But at the same, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes(See : G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., 2000(2) SCC 636 = 2000(40) ACC 501 (SC) and Indian Oil Corporation v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd. 2006(44) AIC 37(SC) = 2006 (56) ACC 249 = 2006(6) SCC 736 )" 6. I am of the view that, as pointed out earlier by learned counsel for the respondent, ingredients of offence under sections 419/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. are, prima facie, made out, from the facts and circumstance of the case, as such,in the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., it cannot be inferred that no criminal offence is made out against the accused applicants. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 28.1.2008. No interference is called for in the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear before the court concerned within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the court concerned, expeditiously, in accordance with law, and taking into consideration that one of the applicants is in service.