Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Khanna And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 January, 2020
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1614 of 2020 Applicant :- Gaurav Khanna And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. appearing for the opposite party no.1-State.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute is of civil nature and the F.I.R. has been lodged with the delay of three years. The matter pertains to financial irregularities in regard to a firm of which the opposite party no.2 is the member and without his signature, no loan can be sanctioned. He submits that the parties may enter into amcable settlement and therefore, he requested that by giving some protection, time may be allowed to the applicants to try to make amcable settlement in the matter.
On the other hand, Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A., submits that there is an allegation of misappropriation of money and after investigation, on the basis of material and evidence charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants and the Magistrate, applying his mind, has taken cognizance in the matter.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
On perusal of the F.I.R., it is prima facie evident that the allegation is in regard to financial irregularities. It is also transpired that the applicants have admitted that there is a firm of which he is member. Allegation of the F.I.R. was corroborated under the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. The applicants have been implicated in regard to financial irregularities and after investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against them. The Magistrate, on examination of evidence and material on record, has taken cognizance by issuing order of summons.
In view of the above, no interference is called for by this Court. The application lacks merit.
However, if the applicants surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and move bail application, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and also keeping in view the directions contained in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in ADJ 322(SC) as well as in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290.
For four weeks or till the date of surrender, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.1.2020 GK Sinha