Allahabad High Court
Deen Bandhu Beg vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106835 Court No. - 85 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6268 of 2025 Petitioner :- Deen Bandhu Beg Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwini Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue an order or direction in appropriate nature setting aside the impugned judgement and order dated 06.03.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Special Court No. 2 (P.C. Act), Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 748 of 2024 (Deen Bandhu Beg vs. Manager, HDB Financial Service and another) and the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut (Annexure No. 9 and 7 to the petitioner respectively) with all it's consequential effects.
(ii) Issue an order or direction in the appropriate nature directing the learned Trial Court to summon the respondent no. 2 for facing trial under appropriate provisions of law for ends of justice.
(iii) Issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances existing in the present case.
(iv) Award the cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner throughout."
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as a complaint case and after recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the respondent no. 2 was summoned to face the trial.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his younger brother Arvind Beg is the main accused who had drawn loan from the respondent no. 2 by robbing the sale deed from the almirah of the complainant.
From perusal of the record, it transpires that the incident is of the year 2017, however, the petitioner moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the year 2022. The said application was filed only against the respondent no.2 i.e. H.D.B. Financial Services, Meerut and did not implead the brother who was the main accused as a necessary party.
It also transpires that in a application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47965 of 2019, the petitioner is also the signatory of the loan amount and both the brothers have equal responsibility to pay the amount and only to wriggle out from his responsibility, this application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Puspendra