Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27073 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramji Lal Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 18.07.2018 passed by Special Judge (Decoity Affected Area), Farrukhabad as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 113 of 2016 under Section 392 I.P.C. Police Station Maudarwaza, District Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that daughter of M.C. Gupta, who is uncle of O.P. No.2, married Nitin Gupta, therefore, at the instance of M.C. Gupta, the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegation of Rs. 50,000/- having been given by the O.P. No.2, has been disbelieved by the court below, however, the allegation of gold, chain and other jewelleries having been looted from O.P. No.2 has been believed and based on that erroneously, this summoning order has been passed against the accused applicant.
From the contents of the FIR and other evidence on record, it is prima facie, proved that a cognizable offence is made out against the present accused.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
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 applicant. 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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the purpose. He is free to make all submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, rejected.
If the accused applicant moves a bail application before court below within a period of 20 days from today, his bail application shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Till 20 days, no coercive action will be taken against him. Beyond expiry of 20 days' limit, the court shall take all coercive action, if required, for trial.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 A. Mandhani