Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34278 of 2009 Petitioner :- Yugul Kishore Seth @ Y.K. Seth Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused
the record.
This case was nominated by Hon’ble Senior Judge on 22.1.2010.
This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed with the prayer to allow this application and quash the
complaint Case No. 141 of 2008, under Section 420 I.P.C., Jagdish
Ratan Prajapati Vs. Brij Kishor Seth and another, P.S. Shivkuti,
District Allahabad.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that on advice of elder brother,
opposite party no. 2 invested the money as a partner with the
applicant. The amount was invested in the share market, on
consent of opposite party no. 2. Thereafter, time to time, the profit
was paid to the complainant opposite party no. 2. He further
contended that the applicant has returned, more amount than the
amount paid by the complainant opposite party no. 2. When he
was getting profit from the share no complaint was made.
However, when there was break down in the share market, then on
the basis of false allegation the complaint was filed. In a case of
co-accused in Criminal Misc. Application No. 25499 of 2009, the
proceeding was stayed by this court on 8.10.2009. Hence, the
entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. He also submitted that
the applicant has also been released on bail in the present
complaint case.
The aforesaid prayer was opposed by learned AGA on the ground
that from perusal of the complaint and statement prima facie
offence is disclosed against the applicant. Hence, he is not entitled
for bail.
There is allegation against the applicant that the money was paid
for finance company. However, without his consent the money
was invested in the share market. Some of the amount was
returned, however, neither the finance company was established
nor the amount, invested by the complaint, was returned to him.
Rather he was abused and threatened. Whether the amount has
already been returned or not whether the money was invested in
share market with the consent of complainant, has to be considered
by the trial court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.
As far as the case of co-accused Brij Kishore Seth alias B.K. Seth
is concerned. In that case, the proceeding was stayed only against
him. Against him and his allegation was that the amount was
invested by the complainant opposite party no. 2, in share through
co-accused (present applicant) and even a single panny was not
paid to him. Hence, on that ground the proceeding was stayed only
against him.
In view of the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to
interfere in the complaint case filed by the opposite party no. 2.
Accordingly, the present application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010
Manoj