Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 7196 of 2021
Applicant :- Atul Varshney
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Case is taken up through video conferencing.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceedings as well as impugned order dated 21.1.2021 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Court no 4, Mathura in Cr. Revision No. 133 of 2019, Atul Varshney Vs. State of U.P. and another, as well as summoning order dated 10.5.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Mathura, in complaint case no. 2025 of 2018, Sanjay Sisaudiya, Vs. Atul Varshney and other, under section 406 I.P.C. police station Kotwali Mathura, District Mathura, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 3 Mathura.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offence. The impugned complaint was filed making false and baseless allegations and that there is no satisfactory evidence regarding supply of any goods to the applicant’s firm. In fact, at the time of alleged supply, the firm of applicant was not in existence. The bills attached by opp. party no. 2 / complainant in support of his complaint are false and fabricated. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as there is no evidence regarding payment of supply of goods to the applicant by the complainant, thus no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It has further been submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 10.5.2019 is against facts and law. It has also been submitted that the summoning order dated 10.5.2019 was challenged by the applicant in Cr. Revision No. 133 of 2019 but the said revision was also dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura by impugned order dated 21.1.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that both the impugned orders are against the law and liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. has submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint, statement of complainant recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It has further been submitted that the impugned summoning order has already been upheld by the revisional court.
The legal position on the issue of quashing the criminal proceeding is well settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint or charge sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. In the instant matter, considering entire facts and material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. The impugned summoning order has been passed after considering all relevant facts of the matter. The impugned summoning order has already been upheld by the revisional court. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, interalia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no such eventuality is made out. Hence, the prayer for quashing as made above is hereby refused.
However, considering the entire facts of the matter, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law.
For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
With the aforesaid directions, this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.7.2021