Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42574 of 2018 Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 27.5.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div)/J.M. Ist, Aonla, District Bareilly passed in complaint case no. 1575 of 2015 (Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) under sections 397, 398 IPC, P.S. Aonla, District Bareilly as well as judgment and order dated 31.8.2018 passed by VIth Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption (U.P.S.E.B.), Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 215 of 2016 (Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) by which Judicial Magistrate-I, Aonla, District Bareilly rejected the complaint of applicant under section 203 Cr.P.C.
Brief facts of the case is that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.12.2015 treated the application of the applicant moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case, which was registered as complaint case no. 1575 of 2015 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Dinesh Juwal and others). Date was fixed for recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. Later on statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded. The court concerned after considering the contents of the complaint, statement of the complainant and of his witnesses vide order dated 27.5.2016 rejected the complaint with the finding that if any fraud is committed by the composer in the news paper and if any sum/money is credited in the account, the composer of such news paper or Managing Director cannot be held responsible. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.2016 the complainant filed criminal revision no. 215 of 2016 (Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6 after hearing the parties vide order dated 31.8.2018 dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated 27.5.2016 passed by the Magistrate concerned.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below has wrongly rejected the complaint, without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record. After perusal of the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. there is clear cut case made out against opposite parties.
In the revision also the revisional court has not appreciated the evidence on record and straightway dismissed the revision without giving any substantial reason.
Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant and submitted that there is no illegality in the orders impugned passed by the courts below, hence the present application deserves to be dismissed.
I have perused the impugned orders. From the perusal of the orders impugned and the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, this court finds that the courts below after considering each and every aspect of the matter comes to the conclusion and prima facie recorded his satisfaction that no case as alleged by the applicant in the complaint is made out against the opposite parties, hence rejected the complaint and thereafter revisional court too rejected the revision after recording prima facie satisfaction.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders impugned. The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Prajapati [Chandra Dhari Singh, J]