Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2138 (ALL)

JAI RAM @ JAI KUMAR JACAB v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-09-12

HARSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J. Case called out. None present for opposite party no.2. 2. Heard Shri V.N. Mishra learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. The revision has been filed against the order dated 1.11.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad rejecting the application of discharge filed by accused, revisionist in S.T.No.899 of 2011 (State vs. Jai Ram @ Jai Kumar) under Sections 420, 452, 506, 354 and 307 I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the revisionist has been falsely implicated for the offences mentioned against him; that the real fact is that the first informant, opposite party no.2 was Priest of the Church and taking undue advantage of his position, he obtained money from several persons on the pretext of providing him service and also obtained a sum of Rs.9,35,000/- from the revisionist for providing him house; that when the revisionist demanded his money back the opposite party no.2 provided him a cheque of a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- which was dishonoured; that the opposite party no.2 has gone dishonest and misappropriated the entire money of Rs.9,35,000/- paid by the revisionist to him which was earned by the revisionist through his small business over stall of Chhola Kulcha and was collected by selling his house as well as by obtaining money on interest; that the opposite party no.2 in fact carries on business of property dealer and by deceiving the persons has misappropriated their funds and obtained the post of Priest in the Church; that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging F.I.R. was moved by opposite party no.2 with false allegations, that no offence under Sections 420 and 307 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist; that the impugned order is wrong on facts and law and is liable to be set aside and by allowing the revision the revisionist is liable to be discharged of the offences. 5. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order and contended that there is sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which offences under Sections 420 and 307 I.P.C. and other offences are made out against the revisionist; that the contention of revisionist that opposite party no.2, the first informant carries on business of property dealing or has become dishonest or realised money from different persons on the pretext of providing them job or realised a sum of Rs.9,35,000/- from revisionist on the pretext of providing him house or that he provided him cheque for Rs.1,70,000/- which was dishonoured (regarding which the revisionist does not state to have taken any action against opposite party no.2, the alleged culprit) are the facts which may stated and proved by the revisionist in his defence evidence; that after framing of charges the trial is in progress and the correctness of the averments made in F.I.R./prosecution case as well as defence version is to be decided upon the evidence at the time of final disposal of trial. 6. Upon hearing counsel and perusal of record, I find that the lower court record has been summoned in this revision which shows that after hearing the revisionist charges were framed against him on 16.1.2011 for the offences under Sections 420, 452, 506, 354 and 307 I.P.C. and thereafter statement of P.W.-1 was recorded on 23.12.2011 and of the first informant/opposite party no.2 on 12.4.2012, with whom lengthy cross examination has been made by the revisionist up till 3.9.2012 which has not been concluded as yet. The contentions raised by the revisionist regarding payment of Rs.9,35,000/- to the first informant or issuing cheque of Rs.1,70,000/- by him was allegedly dishonoured etc. are the facts (regarding which the revisionist does not state to have taken any action against opposite party no.2, the alleged culprit) which may be raised by the revisionist in his defence evidence and at this stage upon consideration of above facts there may be no sufficient ground for discharging the revisionist. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I find that there is no illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The revision is dismissed accordingly. 9. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I find that there is no illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The revision is dismissed accordingly. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to court below along with lower court record for ascertaining expeditious disposal of case, in accordance with law.