LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-151

RAJESH KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On April 28, 2008
RAJESH KUMAR TRIPATHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No. 1401 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 457, 427 and 506, I.P.C., arising out of the charge-sheet submitted in Case Crime No. 222 of 2006 P. S. George Town, District Allahabad, pending in the court of learned Additional C.J.M.-I, Allahabad and the order dated 11.3.2008 by which bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.

(2.) THE facts in brief, of this case are that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sri Prabhunath Pandey at P. S. George Town on 13.11.2006, at 2.20 p.m. against the applicant and others with the allegations that the applicant is a land Mafia, he is involved in purchasing and selling of the land on the basis of forged document and takes illegal possession of the land by way of extending threats of life. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance, on 25.5.2007, thereafter, the applicant moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C., in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Allahabad, the same was allowed on 6.8.2007 directing the officer in-charge of the P.S. George Town to ensure that investigation of this case, be done by any superior officer, or any other investigating agency. THEreafter, the learned A.C.J.M.-I, Allahabad issued bailable warrant against the applicant on 11.3.2008, because the applicant has not appeared in the Court concerned even after the order of taking cognizance dated 25.5.2007. In the present application, the applicant has prayed to quash the proceedings to Case No. 1401 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned Additional C.J.M.-I, Allahabad and to set aside the bailable warrant issued against him on 11.3.2008 by the aforesaid Court.

(3.) IT is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that even on the basis of the material collected by the I.O., no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 457, 427 and 506 I.P.C., is not made out.