Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34268 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Agarwal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Agarwal
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar and Sri Praveen Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Aushim Luthra holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. Application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the complaint Case No.1595 of 2018, under Sections 409, 418, 422, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Khurja, District Bulandshahar pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja Bulandshahar and the summoning order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja Bulandshahar as well as the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.9, Bulandhshar
3. Though the counter affidavit has been filed on 09.09.2020 but inspite of time granted on several occasions no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Today, counsel for the applicants states that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit.
4. The entire controversy has come into existence on account of the complaint dated 04.12.2018 filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants with the allegations that in the year 2012 by the joining letter dated 30.03.2012 the complainant was appointed as Senior Manager in Param Dairy Ltd. and on 30.01.2017 without any prior notice he was discontinued from service and was asked not to come on duty by the owner and by the Deputy General Manager of the Firm. The complainant being shocked and surprised went to the applicants requesting him to clear his account and take him back in service and when he requested to know the reason for being ousted from the service the applicants misbehaved with him using abusive language and also threatened him to dire consequences.
5. Aggrieved by the conduct of the applicants, the complainant has filed an application dated 08.02.2017 before the S.H.O., Police Station -Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar and when nothing was done the present complaint dated 04.12.2018 was filed in which after recording the statement of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants have been summoned.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that perusal of the complaint indicates that the matter is cognizable by a court of Labour Commissioner and the complainant instead of filing of complaint should have approached the Labour Commissioner for redressal of his grievances. He further submits that the there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the averments made in the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that Himanshu Garg who has been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is also an interested witness as he was also ousted from Param Dairy Ltd. due to which he has given the said statement against the applicants. He further submits that the complaint has not disclosed at any point of time as to what amount has to be paid by the applications to the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the present complaint is maintainable as the averments made therein speak about the conduct of the applicants who have ousted the complainant without giving him prior notice and on making request as to why he has been ousted from service, he has been threatened to be ready to face dire consequences. He has also pointed out that the applicants have been released on bail on certain terms and conditions which have not been complied with till date.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
9. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order and the proceedings of the complaint case when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty (ix) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
10. The submission made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the complaint case and the statement of the complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and its witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the summoning order or the proceedings of the complaint case against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
11. The prayer for quashing the impugned orders as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
12. Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 N Tiwari