Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7271 of 2019 Applicant :- Babloo Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Johri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicant Babloo Singh, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash impugned summoning order dated 29.10.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 699 of 2018, Akeel Shah Vs. Maan Singh Rana and others, under Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Bisalpur, district Pilibhit, pending in court of Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
Learned counsel for applicant argued that an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by applicant against complainant Akeel Shah and others, which was allowed and order for registration of case crime number was passed on 29.7.2017 and this proceeding is counter blast of the same. Cheque of Knnc Real Estates Limited was issued by its authorised signatory Akeel Shah, who has filed this complaint.
From perusal of order dated 29.7.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 190M of 2017 it is apparent that there occurred some occurrence regarding alleged fraud and deposit of false cheque in between both sides and a case crime number was directed to be registered and investigated by the order of C.J.M., Pilibhit. Present complainant Akeel Shah regarding the same Company has filed this complaint for alleged fraud committed by the Company and its partners in which statements u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were got recorded by the Magistrate and thereafter summoning order was passed on the basis of those statements recorded during enquiry. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and the recent being A.R.C.J. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 348. Therefore, this Court does not deem it proper and cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge by moving a proper application for the said purpose before the trial court and he is free to make all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court including those which have been canvassed by him before this Court in this application.
Accordingly the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the applicant is ready to surrender before the court and to move bail application, however, some time be provided to him for such purpose and the court below be directed to consider his bail application expeditiously in accordance with the law as laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision ofAmrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2005 Cri.L.J 755 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437. Prayer has also been made to direct the learned trial court to consider his discharge application.
Learned AGA has no objection against the aforesaid prayer.
As the law laid down in both the aforesaid cases, should be complied with in letter and spirit, by all courts, it is expected from the trial court that in case the applicant surrenders before it within 30 days from today and applies for bail it will decide his bail application in wake of the law laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2005 Cri.L.J 755 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437.
For a period of 30 days from today, which shall not be extended further in any case, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above mentioned case.
With the aforesaid directions this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Pcl