HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 14224 of 2009
Applicant :- Ahmad Hussain
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kr. Chitragupt
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Gauri Shankar Yadav,R.P.Srivastava
Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kr. Chitragupt, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P.Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record brought on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 10.4.2008 and 13.4.2009 passed by C.J.M., Siddharth Nagar in Complaint Case No.1361 of 2008, under Sectionsections 419, Section420, Section406 I.P.C. P.S.Dhebaruwa, District Siddharth Nagar.
Learned carousel for the applicant contended that the informant, father of opposite party no.2 moved an application under Sectionsection 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant before the C.J.M., Siddharth Nagar, which was allowed by the Magistrate and directed the local police to lodge the report and investigate the matter. In compliance of the order of the Magistrate, the FIR was lodged as case crime no.624 of 2006, under Sectionsections 419, Section420, Section406 I.P.C. Thereafter the investigating officer commenced the investigation and after conclusion of the investigation the final report was submitted as it was found that no offence was committed by the applicant as alleged in the report. Consequently the opposite party no.2 filed protest petition and the Magistrate set aside the final report vide order dated 10.4.2008 which has been passed without applying judicial mind. After the death of the first informant his son Seraj Ahmad moved an application before the Magistrate for continuation of the case which was allowed. The protest petition was treated as complaint and after recording the statements of the witnesses under Sectionsections 200 Section202 Cr.P.C. the applicant was summoned under Sectionsection 406 IPC which is bad in the eyes of law.
It is next contended that since the full amount was not paid to the applicant,hence the part money was returned to the informant and as such he has committed no offence.
Aggrieved by the orders of the Magistrate the applicant has approached this Court by means of the present application with the prayer to set aside both the orders.
The prayer for quashing the impugned orders passed in the aforesaid complaint case case pending before the court concerned is refused.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the aforesaid case, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, provided the applicant cooperates with the trial.
No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till the conclusion of the trial..
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 14.10.2019