Allahabad High Court
Kanchan Singh Bisht & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 16 November, 2019
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 8091 of 2019 Applicant :- Kanchan Singh Bisht & Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar,Fuhar Gupta,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 3.9.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya) in complaint Case No.578 of 2019 instituted by the complainant, Sri Chand.
At the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C. an application came to be filed by the petitioners for discharge (wrongly mentioned as Section 251 Cr.P.C.). The application ought to have been filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Section 251 Cr.P.C. is the stage of framing of charge. It was stated in the application that the petitioners were not present when the alleged offence of forging the signature of the son of the complainant on the demand notice was committed.
It appears that the complainant had taken Cash Credit Loan from the Punjab National Bank, which he could not pay and, therefore, a demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued on 15.7.2016. When in pursuance of the demand notice, the complainant could not deposit the amount as demanded, his property was auctioned.
Allegations in the complaint were that the service of notice was forged inasmuch as the signature of the son of the complainant was forged on the demand notice.
Learned Magistrate after considering the complaint, statements of the complainant and the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has been of the opinion that there is sufficient material available against the petitioners for forming, prima facie, view of the commission of the offence under Section 465 IPC and, therefore, the application has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate/trial court is required to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge sheet and the complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, he will proceed with the framing of charge.
This is what has been correctly done by the learned Magistrate in the present case. Learned Magistrate has gone through the allegations made in the complaint, statements of the complainant and the witnesses and, thereafter, has been of the opinion that there is sufficient material available on record to form, prima facie, view that the accused have committed the offence under Section 465 IPC.
In view thereof, I do not think that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate on 3.9.2019 is liable to be interfered with.
Thus, the petition being without any merit and substance, is dismissed.
However, the petitioners are at liberty to lead evidence in their support as provided under Section 254 Cr.P.C. at an appropriate stage.
Order Date :- 16.11.2019 Rao/-