Allahabad High Court
Dr Anuj Singhal And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 March, 2020
Author: Bachchoo Lal
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 82 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1781 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dr Anuj Singhal And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Pathak,Harshit Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.1.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur and order dated 19.4.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IIIrd, Saharanpur and the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1898 of 2019 (Smt. Shamsida Vs. Dr. Anuj Singhal & another) under section 420, 323 IPC pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IIIrd, Saharanpur.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is village Pradhan and petitioner no. 2 is B.D.C. member. They have falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioners have not taken any money from respondent no. 2. False complaint has been filed by respondent no. 1. The summoning order dated 19.4.2019 is not in accordance with law. In fact, no offence is made out against the petitioners. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment. The petitioners have preferred criminal revision which was dismissed by the lower revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 24.1.2020. The judgment and order of lower revisional court is also not in accordance with law.
On the other hand; learned A.G.A. argued that respondent no. 2 in her complaint has stated that the house was allotted to her under the scheme of Lohiya Gram Yojana. The first instalment of Rs. 1,37,000/- was deposited in the bank account of respondent no. 2. The petitioner no. 1 had obtained Rs. 1,37,000/- from respondent no. 2 saying that the construction work will be completed soon. She further stated that the petitioners have received Rs. 1,37,000/-. The respondent no. 1 in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. has supported the complaint version and she also produced Farman and Anil in support of her complaint version under section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the petitioners to face trial under section 420, 323 IPC. There is no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order.
A perusal of the record shows that respondent no. 2 in her complaint has made allegation against the petitioners for taking Rs. 1,37,000/-. The respondent no. 2 has disclosed the entire fact in her complaint and also supported the complaint version in her statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. She also examined two witnesses in support of her complaint version. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the petitioners under section 420, 323 IPC. The petitioners preferred criminal revision against the impugned summoning order which was dismissed by the lower revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 24.1.2020. I do not find any irregality or irregularity in the impugned orders of courts below. The learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the order dated 24.1.2020 as well as order dated 19.4.2019 and entire proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 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 petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.3.2020 Masarrat