Allahabad High Court
Satyapal Singh Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 November, 2022
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 85 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11955 of 2022 Applicant :- Satyapal Singh Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kshitij Pal Singh,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and peruse the record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved to quash the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by Additional Session Judge/FTC-1, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No.128 of 2019 (Stayapal Singh Verma vs. State of U.P. and another) alongwith order dated 20.07.2018 and summoning order dated 18.09.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shikohabad District Firozabad in Complaint Case No.1103 of 2017 (Neeraj Kumar vs. Satyapal Singh Verma) under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Basai Mohammadpur, District Firozabad and also prays to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.
It is submitted that in this case applicant was summoned by the court concerned u/s 138 N.I. Act. Thereafter, he filed an application for discharge before the court concerned but it was rejected vide order dated 20.07.2018 without considering the the facts and material available on record. It is also submitted that in the complaint it has not been mentioned that as to when opposite party gave money amounting to Rs.10 lakhs against which the impugned check was given to him by the applicant. These facts were not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 18.09.2017 and 20.07.2018 against which a revision was filed before the court concerned but it was also dismissed. Therefore, requested to quash the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by Additional District & Session Judge/FTC-1 and orders dated 20.07.2018 and 18.09.2017 passed by learned A.C.J.M for summoning and for discharge application.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing the orders in question and urged that in this case a check was said to be given to the opposite party by the applicant which was dishonored by the Bank regarding which a complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded and after considering the material on record the order for summoning was passed. Later on, an application u/s 227, 239, 244 was moved by this applicant before the court concerned which was rejected as being premature against which a revision was filed which was also rejected on the similar ground. In this way, the applicant may have an option to file an application for discharge u/s 245 Cr.P.C. at an appropriate stage. Therefore, there is no ground to quash the proceedings of the case including the orders in question.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that in this case summoning order was passed by the court concerned u/s 138 N.I. Act against the applicant. Thereafter, applicant did not appear before the court concerned but moved an application for discharge u/s 227, 239, 245 Cr.P.C. which were rejected by the court concerned on the ground that the discharge application u/s 227 & 239 were not applicable except application for discharge u/s 245 Cr.P.C. It also appears that this application was moved before the court concerned before recording evidence of the witnesses u/s 244 Cr.P.C., therefore, this application was moved at premature stage. In this way, applicant may have an option to move for discharge before the court concerned at an appropriate stage. On the basis of material on record, at this stage there is no ground to quash the proceedings of the case including the orders in question.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally with liberty to the applicant to move an application for discharge at an appropriate stage before the court.
Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Ashok Gupta