Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30678 of 2019 Applicant :- Anil Mittal Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anshul Kumar Singhal,Vinod Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohit Singh
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Shri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2.
Present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.6.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No.946 of 2018 (Old Case No.1350 of 2017), under Section 138, N.I. Act, P.S. Sector-39, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
It reflects from the record that earlier an Application U/S 482 No.7839 of 2019 was filed challenging the entire proceedings of the complaint case including the summoning order. The said application was rejected vide order dated 8.3.2019. Subsequently, another Application U/S 482 No.29627 of 2019 was filed challenging the order dated 6.6.2019, whereby the applicant was directed to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation. The said application was allowed and the impugned order dated 6.6.2019 was quashed. Further direction was issued to the magistrate to decide the complaint in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary or long adjournment to the parties concerned. Again present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.6.2019, whereby the application filed by the applicant for production of some document from the side of the complainant has been rejected.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the relevant document relating to the case has not been filed by the complainant, therefore, same is required and accordingly, direction be issued to the complainant to file such documents.
On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 supported the impugned order and contended that application has rightly been rejected by the magistrate and the same application has been filed in order to delay the trial.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The court rejected the said application on the ground that since the evidence of the complainant had already been concluded and the complainant had filed certain document in support of his case and the cross examination has already been over and the case is fixed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., therefore, at this stage the application has only been moved in order to delay the proceeding and nothing else. If the relevant document has not been filed by the complainant, then that will adversely effect his case and no prejudice is going to be caused to the applicant in case relevant document, as alleged by the applicant, has not been filed.
In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned at this interlocutory stage. Moreover, the applicant has remedy to challenge the order in the appeal, in case the case is decided against him.
The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 26.8.2019 T. Sinha