Jgdeesh Pandit vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 9287 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3123 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Jgdeesh Pandit
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. None for the applicant.Learned AGA for the State.

2. As per earlier order sheets, case was adjourned on 19.2.2021. Later on it was fixed on 12.7.2021 and again nobody had appeared on behalf of the applicant in spite of sending VC link. Today also nobody is appearing for the applicant.

3. In view of such facts, case is perused with the help of learned AGA.

4. This application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 0014 of 2017 (Ajayupal Vs. Jagdeesh Pandit and others) under section 392 IPC, police station Charkhari, District Mahoba pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 1)/ Special Judge (DAA), Mahoba, District Mahoba.

5. Brief facts of the present case are that vide order dated 4.4.2017, an application moved by the complainant under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mahoba directing registration of case as complaint case. After recording of statement of the complainant, this witness, under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., Court has issued summons to the applicant vide order dated 22.10.2018. A copy of the judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mahoba in Special Case No. 63 of 2016, Computer No. 57/2016, Jagdeesh Vs. Chillu alias Khub Chand and two others dated 22.10.2020 has been placed on record to show that complainant Ajaypal, S/o Khub Chand has been convicted under section 387 IPC and accused were convicted with three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default of payment of fine, 3 months simple imprisonment. Placing reliance on judgment of the court below, it appears that applicant wants to submit that present case is a counter blast in which no action should be taken against the present applicant. However, the fact of the matter is that there are two independent sets of evidence and order of summoning is prior to that of date of which conviction was recorded against Ajaypal and, therefore, mainly on the ground of conviction of Ajaypal on 20.10.2020, no indulgence can be shown to quash the summoning order. Application fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.8.2021

S.K.S.