Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47149 of 2019 Applicant :- Kannad Rishi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh,Vagish Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Kannad Rishi against State of U.P. and Vipin Kumar, with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 11.9.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4545 of 2019, Vipin Vs. Kannad Rishi and others, under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 408 I.P.C., P.S. Kankarkheda, district Meerut, pending in court of A.C.J.M., Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is a malicious prosecution under abuse of process of law. There had been due to applicant against complainant, where for an application was moved before S.P., Meerut, and in this both the parties entered into a compromise, which is at page no. 36 of the application, wherein they agreed that there remains no dispute of accountancy in between. Subsequently this complaint was filed with malicious prosecution, wherein it is alleged that forgery was committed by the applicant. Whereas signature of complainant was genuine and it was paid to third party and the the applicant is not a beneficiary of the same. Hence this application with above prayer.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument.
From the very perusal of the paper appended at page 36 of the application, it is apparent that there had been dispute regarding accountancy in between them. It is admitted fact that the applicant was Manager of the complainant. The allegation is that he manufactured and manipulated his signature on his cheque whereby payment was made to third party from his account and it was in deceit and fraud, for which this complaint was filed. The same has been reiterated in the statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and has been corroborated by the statement u/s 202 Cr.P.C. during enquiry made by the Magistrate. The Magistrate was of the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding further and this was with application of judicial mind as is apparent on the face of record. Hence the same is substantiated by the facts obtained in enquiry.
This court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not to embark upon factual matrix because it is to be seen by the trial court during trial. Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal.
Dismissed as such.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 thirty 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.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Pcl