Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21508 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Vandana Saxena And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.K.Umrao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking the quashing of order dated 1.8.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj as well as the entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 1248 of 2017, Mohar Singh versus Vandana Saxena and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
As per the First Information Report, the informant was working as an agent in the branch office of Sunshine Infrabuild Corporation Ltd. situated at Kasganj. It has been further stated in the F.I.R. that a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs had been deposited with the company as Fixed Deposit but on maturity the company has not paid any amount to the opposite party no.2. It has been further alleged in the F.I.R. that several other persons have also deposited the huge money with the said company and no payment has been made to them as well. Further allegation is that on 10.10.2016 the informant along with other persons reached at the branch office of the said company at Kasganj where the applicants and other persons were threatened and it was thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged in pursuance of the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the applicants has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity, much less than any abuse of court's process which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same, which reflects judicial application of mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been analyzed in detail and it cannot be said that the summoning has been done without sufficient evidence. After submission of final report by the Investigating Officer there are many options open before the Magistrate, he can reject the final report and differ with the inference drawn by the Investigating Officer. But at the same time if in his opinion there is sufficient material available in the case diary on the basis of which the cognizance may be taken he can well take cognizance on the material contained in the case diary and proceed with the matter as a State case taking cognizance u/s 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. It is also possible that he may accept the final report if he agrees with the inference drawn by the Investigation Officer. The third option open before the Magistrate is that he may treat the protest petition as a complaint and may proceed in the matter as a complaint case. Another option is that if he feels that the matter deserves some further investigation he can proceed to make the same order and ask the Investigating Officer to undertake further investigation into the case and submit his report.
In the present case, the Magistrate concerned after due application of judicial mind has passed the order dated 1.8.2018 whereby the protest petition has been accepted and the final report dated 19.8.2017 has been set aside and the learned Magistrate has taken cognisance under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and thereby has summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC.
This court does not see any good ground to take a different view in the matter and to substitute the discretion exercised by the court below by its own as the same does not contain any element of perversity.
Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused. The application has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 CPP/-