Allahabad High Court
Rajneesh Chandra Shukla And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 January, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39188 of 2022 Applicant :- Rajneesh Chandra Shukla And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 146 of 2021 (State Vs. Rajeesh Chandra Shukla), arising out of Case Crime No. 383 of 2018, under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Patherwa, District Kushinagar, as well as order dated 7.1.2021 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the aforesaid case crime, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is, the applicants were the Directors of Janchetna Projects Limited. In the year 2016 itself upon their retirement from the Board of Directors of that company, they ceased to be liable towards the company. Reference has also made to the documents/compliance made by the company before the Registrar of Companies. Referring to the supplementary affidavit, it has been then contended that all payments that became allegedly due were duly made/ensured by the applicants while they had worked as Directors of that company. The opposite party no. 2 is also stated to be a Director of that Company. Thus, allegations are stated to have emerged later in the year 2018, against the applicants owing to the other disputes between the parties.
4. Last, it has been submitted, all offences on which the applicants have been charge sheeted are wholly referable to Category-A cases of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. would submit, fact disputes are involved; evidence would have to be evaluated and appreciated before any firm conclusion may be reached if the applicants were involved in the occurrence; that exercise may not be undertaken in 482 jurisdiction. However, he could not dispute that the applicants do fall within the Category-A of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773.
6. Insofar, fact allegations are concerned, the stage appears to be premature for this Court to draw any conclusion in that regard. Whether the applicants were directors on the concerned date is the fact that would be established on the strength of the evidence and material. What role applicants may have played or not played would also remain a matter to be considered on facts brought before the court below.
7. In view of the above, while interference is declined on the merits and therefore prosecution may not be quashed at this preliminary stage, it is left open to the applicants to appear before the learned court below on the next date and apply for bail which relief if sought may be dealt with and decided strictly in accordance with law as noted above, expeditiously.
8. The application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.1.2023 SA