Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16842 of 2019 Applicant :- Vijay Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pathak,Shahnawaz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., for the State of U.P.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 23.10.2017 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1193 of 2015 (Ausita Simlai Shah Vs. Vijay Singh) under Sections 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad.
As per prosecution version, opposite party No. 2 (Ausita Simlai Shah) has executed registered sale deed of her own house No. 72/76, Stanley Road, Allahabad in favour of the applicant/accused (Vijay Singh) on 11.3.2014 for consideration money of Rs. 45 lakh. Applicant/accused (Vijay Singh) paid Rs. 2 lakh only at the time of execution of sale seed and promised to pay remaining money later on. After some time, applicant (Vijay Singh) further paid Rs. 3 lakh. Complainant/opposite party No. 2 (Ausita Simlai Shah) demanded remaining money, then the applicant issued three cheques of Rs. 15 lakh and Rs.
10 lakh. These cheques could not be honoured due to insufficient money in the account of the applicant. Later on, on demand of money by the opposite party No. 2 (Ausita Simlai Shah), the applicant and 8 to 10 unknown persons assaulted on the husband of the opposite party No. 2 due to which, he sustained injuries.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that as per sale deed only Rs. 20 lakh consideration money was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. No other consideration money was due on the applicant. Opposite party No. 2 (Ausita Simlai Shah) has made similar complaint against Panchamram and Rajesh Kumar. She made several application to the authorities in which, she admitted that consideration money was only Rs. 20 lakh. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has not issued any cheque in favour of opposite party No. 2.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
From the perusal of the 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 the applicant.
All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is directed that if applicant surrenders and applies for bail, his bail application shall be decided expeditiously according to law.
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 him.
In result, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., stands disposed of. Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Jaswant