Court No. - 46
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12893 of 2005 Applicant :- Vinod Khosla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Srivastava,Amit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
On the case being taken up in the revised call, no one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this case. On the earlier occasion, another Bench was pleased to vacate the interim order dated 16.9.2005 vide its order dated 9.1.2019 The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings initiated in Complaint Case No.150 of 2004 (Bangali Mal vs. Vinod Khosla) under section 138 N.I.Act pending in the court of ACJM, Court No.46, Agra and also quash the order dated 21.2.2004 whereby the cognizance has been taken against the applicant to face the trial in the aforesaid case.
Since the applicant has been summoned way back in the year 2004 and the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been hanging since the year 2005 at the dint of the interim order and now the interim order has been vacated thus the present petition has lost its utility. No useful purpose would be served by keeping it pending.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments of the learned AGA for the State, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against the applicant. Cognizance taken by the trial court, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face the trial suffers from no illegality and as such the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Crl) 192.where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Having considered rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the proceedings in the aforesaid case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided if the applicant surrenders/appears before the court concerned and applies for bail within thirty days, the court concerned is expected to consider the bail application of the applicant expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Rk