SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sonu Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 August, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 31715 of 2019

Applicant :- Sonu Gupta And Another

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Vivek Varma,J.

Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 31.01.2019 issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Agra in Complaint Case No.2867 of 2018 (Harsh Mohan vs. Sonu Gupta and others), under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Agra. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the opposite party no.2 is running a firm in the name of Innovative Silver Jwellers. The applicant no.2 is the proprietor of B.R. Ornaments Firm. The applicants purchased silver ornaments from the opposite party no.2 for which the applicants have paid Rs.5,99,331- on 11.1.2018. As per allegation made in the complaint, the applicants have not paid the remaining amount of Rs.4,89,923/- towards purchase of ornaments, which was purchased on 04.08.2017, 16.08.2017 and 4.10.2017 from the opposite party no.2. On account of non payment of remaining amount, the opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint case against the applicants.

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 SectionCr.P.C.. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

With the above observations, the application stands disposed off.

Order Date :- 19.8.2019

Ajeet

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation