Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12833 of 2013
Applicant :- Lokesh Prajapati And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.M. Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Kaushlesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Kaushlesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of entire proceedings of impugned Complaint Case No. 3156 of 2011 (old no. 247 of 2011) under Sections 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that it is alleged in the complaint that bricks were purchased for construction of the house of the accused applicant no.1 for an amount of Rs. 30,720/- and regarding payment of which to the O.P. No.2, a cheque was given of Rs. 15,200/- only and it was stated that rest of the amount shall be given subsequently and when the O.P. No.2 went to ask for the said amount to be paid back to him, he was abused and threatened to be killed by the accused applicant Nos.1 and 2 both. it is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that O.P. No.2 should file a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act instead of filing this Complaint Case, hence entire proceedings need to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing and stated that cognizable offence is made out against the applicants on the basis of evidence on record.
I have gone through the complaint which has been filed by O.P. No.2 and in the said complaint, the bricks worth Rs. 30,720/- were purchased from O.P. No.2 by the accused applicant nos. 1 and 2 for construction of the house and when O.P. No.2 asked for the said amount from the applicant no.2 who is Munshi of accused applicant no.1, he has stated that he should ask for the said amount from applicant no.1 only, thereafter, applicant no.1 issued a cheque no. 873918 of Rs. 15,200/- and for the remaining amount, it was stated that he should take his remaining amount on some other day. When the said cheque was deposited in the bank, it was told that there was not enough amount in the account of accused applicant no.1 and, thereafter when the O.P. No.2 approached the accused applicant nos. 1 and 2 for the said amount to be paid, he was badly abused there and threatened to be killed and threat was also given that he would be got implicated in some false case, thereafter the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses were recorded by the trial court and the summoning order dated 8.09.2011 has been passed under the above-mentioned sections. In proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the veracity of the said statement cannot be tested as it would require full trial.
The arguments which are made by the learned counsel for the applicants are related to factual aspect which cannot be seen at this stage in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 judgement 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 30 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 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 :- 26.7.2019
A. Mandhani