Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15406 of 2019 Applicant :- Manish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Dixit,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Utkarsh Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., for the State of U.P. Perused the record.
This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 26.3.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Aligarh as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 105 of 2014 (Pravan Maheshwari Vs. Manish Varshney and others) under Sections 465, 468, 120-B IPC, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that as per allegation of first information report, Dinesh and Shanti Swaroop have executed a sale deed in favour of applicant (Manish Kumar) and co-accused Sanjay of the land belonging to Mithilesh Maheshwari mother of the opposite party No. 2 (Pranav Maheshwari) by forging document. Opposite party No. 2 have not explained the document, which was alleged to be forged. Civil suit is pending between the parties. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicant.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no infirmity in the summoning order.
Alternative remedy under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., is available to the applicant to get himself discharge from the court concerned. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicant is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicant files his bail application, prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
It is further directed that if the applicant applies for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided by the trial court on merit by a speaking order.
Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant.
Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Jaswant