Allahabad High Court
Vivek Benara vs Union Of India And Another on 31 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:192446
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34082 of 2025
Vivek Benara
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Union Of India And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Arvind Kumar, Satyendra Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Parv Agarwal
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Satendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the DGGI.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.4028 of 2019 ( Union of India Vs. Vivek Benara) under Sections 172, 174 and 175 IPC and Section 70 GST Act, DGGI, Regional Unit District Ghaziabad as well as summoning order dated 29.6.2019 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the Managing Director of M/s Benara Bearings and Pistons Ltd. and on the basis of false allegation a complaint against him has been filed for offences punishable under Sections 172, 174 and 175 IPC and for non appearance despite service of summons under Section 70 GST Act and without application of mind court concerned also issued summons to him on 29.6.2019.
4. He further submits that however, summons were issued to the applicant in June, 2019 but till date trial of the case is at initial stage and this fact is evident from the order sheet of the case filed along with the affidavit filed in support of the instant application.
5. He further submits that from the perusal of the impugned complaint it reflects that allegation against the applicant is that despite service of summons he failed to appear before opposite party no.2 but after the complaint dated 24.6.2019 he appeared before opposite party no.2 on 18.7.2019.
6. He further submits that as by appearing before opposite party no.2 on 18.7.2019 applicant complied with the summons, therefore impugned complaint filed against the applicant has now become bad and, therefore, the same should be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the DGGI opposed the prayer and submits that to constitute offences under Sections 172, 174, 175 IPC it is necessary that despite service of notice accused failed to appear before the authority concerned and in the present matter as admittedly summons issued to the applicant were duly served but despite service of notice he failed to appear before opposite party no.2 and he could only appear before him after filing of the instant complaint, therefore, it cannot be said that offences under Sections 172, 174 and 175 IPC are not made out against him.
8. Learned counsel for DGGI further submits that as prima facie offences under Section 172,174 and 175 IPC are made out against the applicant. Therefore, instant application is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
10. From the record it reflects that a complaint under Sections 172, 174 and 175 IPC has been filed against the applicant with the allegation that despite service of summons issued by opposite party no.2 he did not appear.
11. Further, even as per the applicant before filing the instant complaint he did not appear despite service of notice, however, according to him after filing the instant complaint he appeared before opposite party no.2 on 18.7.2019.
12. As according to offences under Sections 172, 174 and 175 IPC if despite service of notice/summon, if a person failed to appear before the authority concerned then these offences are made out. In case at hand, as admittedly summons issued to applicant were duly served upon him and despite service he failed to appear before him, therefore, prima facie offences under Sections 172, 174 and 175 IPC are made out against him.
13. Further, however, it reflects that after filing the complaint applicant appeared before opposite party no.2 on 18.7.2019 but on subsequent appearance of the applicant it cannot be said that proceeding of the instant complaint has become bad and the same can be quashed.
14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, instant application filed by applicant is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sameer Jain,J.) October 31, 2025 SKM