Allahabad High Court
Harinath Patel And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 November, 2019
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 59 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40354 of 2019 Applicant :- Harinath Patel And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mridul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants, at the outset, seeks liberty to delete the name of applicant no.2 from the array of parties, as that applicant is stated to have withdrawn his instructions. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete applicant no.2 from the array of parties during the course of the day. Office to make necessary corrections.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3539 of 2018 (Santu Singh Vs. Harinath Patel & Others), under Sections-420, 468 I.P.C., Police Station-Jamalpur, District-Mirzapur, and also be pleased to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
4. Though, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no real allegation against the applicant, inasmuch as, the payment in excess of Rs.10,00,000/- was admittedly paid to Viresh Chandra Verma through cheque and the applicant was not a party to that transaction, however, it remains undisputed that there is an allegation of payment of Rs.1,70,000/- in cash to the applicant and a common allegation of forged appointment letter having been issued to the complainant by the applicant and the said Viresh Chandra Verma. Prima facie offence made out.
5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in 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.
6. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
7. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants 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 the settled law laid 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 reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.11.2019 S.Chaurasia