Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4817 of 2019 Revisionist :- Hariom Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anuj Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Shri Om Narayan Pandey, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to quash the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Case No. 3283 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Hariom Mishra and another), arising out of Case Crime No.2441 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Kant, District Shahjahanpur.
As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the revisionist, by representing the Opposite Party No.2 as a guarantor, had taken loan from the bank by submitting fictitious documents.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the revisionist and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the revisionist and as such, impugned order cannot be quashed.
At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the impugned order is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the revisionist appears/surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today or till the revisionist surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the revisionist does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid observations, this criminal revision is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Nadim