Allahabad High Court
Navneet Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 November, 2019
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7973 of 2019 Petitioner :- Navneet Singh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Tapan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present writ petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of Indian has been filed for quashingthe order dated 26.8.2019 passed by the Session Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2018 (Navneet Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and the summoning order dated 15.7.2017 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 9488 of 2916 (New No. 2891 of 2019), Smt. Shushila Vs. Navneet Singh & others, under Sections 323, 452, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Jani, District- Meerut, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 10th, Meerut.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners had duped the victim- opposite party no. 2 and had taken a sum of Rs. 7 lacs from her in respect of sale of certain properties. On the basis of allegation made in the complaint as well as statement recorded during the course of inquiry, the petitioners were summoned to face trial under Section 406, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC vide order dated 15.7.2017. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision, which too has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, no offence is disclosed against the petitioners and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the petitioners and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the 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.
The prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused.
However, it is directed that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today or till the petitioners surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.11.2019 KU