Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another on 14 July, 2010
Author: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Bench: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2570 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mahesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Vijaya Prakash Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Nagina, Bijnore, in Complaint Case No. 1048 of 2007, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited Vs. Mahesh Singh, whereby an application for discharge moved by the revisionist u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected.
It appears from the record that O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint against the revisionist. In the complaint the allegation was that the contract alleged to have taken place between the revisionist and O.P. No. 2 was breached. In support of the complaint two witnesses were examined by the complainant and after perusal of the evidence of the witnesses the court was pleased to summon the revisionist u/s 417/420 I.P.C.. The revisionist got his bail in these offences. Later on before the stage of 244 Cr.P.C. an application for discharge as contemplated u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist alleging therein that as the contents of the complaint revealed a contractual liability, therefore, criminal proceedings were bad and the same should have been set aside. The application was rejected on the ground that as the scenario between the proceedings u/s 204 and 244 Cr.P.C. did not change, hence it was not proper to review the order and the trial court rejected the application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C.
Heard Mr. Vijaya Prakash, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Mr. Prakash argued that from the contents of the complaint a clear cut case of breach of contract was made out, which was of the civil nature, therefore, the criminal proceedings should not have been allowed to continue and the discharge application filed by the revisionist should have been allowed.
I feel that this argument of Mr. Prakash does not weigh much. Once there was prima-facie material to summon the revisionist u/s204 Cr.P.C. and no other evidence came on the record till the start of the proceedings u/s 244 Cr.P.C. there could be no propriety with the court to review its order passed u/s 204 Cr.P.C. and thus, the court was perfectly justified in rejecting that application and leaving the option that the discharge may be considered at the stage of framing of the charge.
In view of the above, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order impugned in the revision and the revision deserves to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed. However, it shall remain open for the revisionist to file an application for discharge at the stage of framing of the charge on whatever ground he wants to address the court.
Order Date :- 14.7.2010 Pcl