Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2495 (ALL)

Avanish Verma v. State of U. P.

2016-07-19

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Present application has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Case No. 385 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2014, under Sections 420, 406, 120B, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, Police Station Haldaur, district Bijnor. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the real cause of dispute is purchase of joint property being House No. 108, Mannuganj, Dehradun which was jointly purchased on 23.7.2002 for which half of the consideration was paid by the applicant and thereafter his real brother opposite party no. 2 by making forged power of attorney sold the share of the applicant in favour of his wife who subsequently sold to some third person. 4. I have perused the record. 5. I find that in the present case allegations are different and they relate to withdrawal of amount from the recurring deposit account existing in the name of the opposite party no. 2 and his wife Smt. Meenakshi Sharma. Other submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant are also on the facts of the case. It was further submitted that the material against the applicant is insufficient. 6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CR.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.IR. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused. The application is accordingly dismissed.