LAWS(ALL)-2007-2-152

MOHD ABULAS KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On February 20, 2007
MOHD.ABULAS KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceeding of complaint case No. 691 of 2006, Smt. Fatima Tasneem v. Mohd. Abulas Khan, pending in the Court of A. C. J. M. Court No. 3 Allahabad.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the criminal complaint case No. 691 of 2006 against the accused applicant is pending in the Court of A. C. J. M. Court No. 3 Allahabad. On 2. 12. 2006 it was noticed that the disputed Original Cheque no. 664740 which was ordered to be kept on 4/9/2006 in a sealed cover was not available on the file and, therefore, the Office/ reader was directed to attach that disputed original cheque kept in a sealed cover in the file of the case. The case was directed to be put on 14/12/2006 for evidence. On 14/12/2006 it had been noted on the order sheet that a report had been given by the reader regarding that cheque but no report was received from the office and so the case was directed to be put up on 6. 1. 2007. On that date, it has been noted on the order sheet that an office report was received to the effect that the disputed cheque had not been received in the office after being sealed ami since the sealed cheque was not available in the file of the case, the Presiding officer passed an order that information to this effect be given to the District Judge, and the complainant should produce secondary evidence of the disputed cheque. On 17/1/2007 a photostat copy of the original cheque was filed and a copy of that was also given to the accused. On 18/1/2007 an application was moved from the side of the accused that since the intimation had been given to the District Judge regarding loss of the cheque, the proceeding of the case should remain stayed till receipt of the instructions from the District Judge. This application was opposed by the complainant. After hearing the parties, the learned presiding Officer rejected the application. Aggrieved with that order this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record. Since only a legal point is involved in this application, I am deciding it at the admission stage.