Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28349 of 2019 Applicant :- Shri Sanjay Machindra Patil Nikam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 15.07.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, District- Meerut as well as non-bailable warrant dated 08.07.2019 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5737 of 2016 (M/s Kansal Entriprises Vs. Sanjay Machindra Patil Nikam), under section 420 I.P.C., Police Station T.P. Nagar, District-Meerut, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Meerut.
It has been argued that prima facie no case is made out against the applicant. It has been submitted that the matter pertains to business transaction and at the best matter may be covered under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but there is no ingredients of cheating. It has been further argued that learned Magistrate has not applied its judicial mind and impugned order has been passed in mechanical manner.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the fact of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no case is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr. P.C. It is well settled that at this stage only prime case is to be seen. Considering the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, material on record and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, no case for quashing of the proceeding is made out.
The prayer for quashing the proceeding is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the courts below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously on its own merits 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 and judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court 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 applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Courts below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed off finally.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 T.S.