Allahabad High Court
Deepak Singh Alias Jayesh Debey Alias ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 July, 2020
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11778 of 2020 Applicant :- Deepak Singh Alias Jayesh Debey Alias Jayesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Udai Karan Saxena(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet dated 23.03.2019 and entire proceedings of Case No. 2850 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Dashashwamegh, District Varanasi, pending before the court of VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is disclosed that one Navneet Dubey obtained car loan of Rs.6,50,000/-, to which, applicant Deepak Singh and Dinesh Kumar Singh submitted their guarantee and the said amount stand transferred in Account No.31099792874 at SBI, The Mall, Cantt., Varanasi in the name of Rajeev Gupta, who is an authorized dealer of Maruti Company. Navneet Dubey defaulted in payment of installments and the said account became non-performing asset.
It is further alleged that Deepak Singh has also obtained car loan of Rs.9,00,000/- for purchasing Maruti Ciaz car and the said amount was also transferred in the account of Rajeev Gupta, the authorized dealer of Maruti Company. However, the said loan amount had also become non-performing asset.
It is further alleged that Deepak Singh also obtained Credit Card having limit of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further alleged that Deepak Singh has submitted papers relating to insurance and registration of the aforesaid vehicle but on an inquiry, it was revealed that the said insurance and registration papers are forged documents.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR, no offence is made out against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant has already been directed to be released on bail.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Moreover, the applicant had already been directed to be released on bail and he has got a right of discharge under Sections 239, 245 or 227 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weigh the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has a right to file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide his discharge application, if there is no evidence against him.
The prayer for quashing the charge sheet dated 23.03.2019 is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicant files an application for discharge before the court below within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided within six weeks in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.7.2020/Nadim