Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25035 of 2018
Applicant :- Alok Garg
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 724 of 2017 as well as summoning order dated 24.07.2017 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.7, Ghaziabad under Sections 379 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that O.P. No.2 is the tenant in the house of accused applicant and only because he did not want to pay rent, he has filed false complaint case against the accused applicant. It is further stated that he is a 66 years old person.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
Allegation as per complaint is that two computers and some other items including Rs. 4,500/- have been taken away by the accused applicant with regard to which statement of complainant as well as two witnesses have been recorded. These statements cannot be disbelieved at this stage in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as that would require trial.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P.
Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.9.2018
A. Mandhani