Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13783 of 2021 Applicant :- Manoj And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash,Rama Shankar Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging summoning order dated 3.2.2021 passed by First Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, in Complaint Case No. 69 of 2020 (56/2020) 'Gajendra vs. Nirdosh Rana and others' under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504 IPC, P.S.- Agauta, District-Bulandshahar, as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned complaint case. Allegations made in complaint are false and concocted. Dispute between parties is a purely civil dispute which has been dragged into criminal litigation. It is then contended that impugned summoning order is cryptic inasmuch as court below has not recorded its prima facie satisfaction with regard to the veracity of allegations made in complaint in the light of statement of complainant as recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Consequently, impugned summoning order passed by court below as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case cannot be sustained and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He contends that court below has passed impugned summoning order dated 3.2.2021 after recording its prima facie statisfaction regarding veracity of the allegations made in complaint. Perusal of impugned summoning order goes to show that court below has referred to the allegations made in complaint in detail. Thereafter, court below has examined the veracity of same in light of statement of complainant as recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above, court below recorded its prima facie satisfaction and has then proceeded to pass impugned summoning order. As such, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by court below. It is then contended that applicants have been implicated under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504 IPC. From the allegations made in the complaint, it cannot be said at this stage that there was no intention on the part of applicant to commit alleged fraud right from inception. Similarly, at this stage, it also cannot be said that no forged document was supplied by applicant to alleged beneficiary. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. submits that no interference is required by this Court.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or the other. Such an exercise can be undertaken only by trial court upon trial of above mentioned complaint case. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
In view of above, application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Shalini