Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7296 of 2019 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Shakya And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav,Mohan Kant Baghel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 19.12.2017 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint No. 1154 of 2015 (Devendra Prasad Singh Versus Arvind Kumar Shakya and another), under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Dakshin, District Firozabad.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that this complaint case was filed by opposite party No. 2 / complainant Devendra Prasad Singh against applicants for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. on the ground that he has invested Rs.2,00,000/- in a Company Nexus Realcon Limited and the same could not be returned back after scheduled period, whereas applicants are not concerned with above company, rather they themselves have invested their money in above company and owing to death of Director Sunil Vyas, this company was not in existence; they themselves are sufferer of above company and they have been wrongly summoned by above summoning order. Hence, this proceeding.
Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the aforesaid prayer.
The complainant Devendra Prasad Singh in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has categorically said that Arvind Kumar Shakya, being a railway employee, came to this complainant and apprised about above company and persuaded for making investment in it, hence under his belief this money of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to him and his wife, which could not be returned back though a bond of above company was given by them to complainant. This has been reiterated in statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and Magistrate on the basis of these statements have passed above summoning order, hence factual submissions being argued is not to be analised in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is inherent power and is to be exercised sparingly as has been propounded by Courts at repeated times in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781 and Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 19.12.2017 and the criminal proceedings passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment 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 four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 NS