Uttarakhand High Court
Anjan Narain Singh And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 30 October, 2017
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.1341 of 2017
(under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Anjan Narain Singh & another ..........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ......Respondents
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate present for the applicants.
2. Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder present for the State/respondent no.1.
3. An application under Section 156(3) CrPC was filed by respondent No.2 before the learned Magistrate. On the basis of the said application, learned Magistrate directed the police authorities to lodge an FIR. Subsequently, a first information report was lodged against the present applicants under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/452/504/506 of IPC which has been registered as FIR No. 244 of 2014 at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the present applicants under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B of IPC, and consequently the learned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter and issued summons against the present applicants and subsequently bailable warrants have also been issued against the applicants. Hence, the present application under Section 482 CrPC before this Court.
4. According to the applicants, applicant no. 1 is the Director of CINNI Foundation and the contract was signed between CINNI Foundation and Dynasty Foundation at 2 Banaras and the licence was also given to the complainant at Banaras.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and in support of this argument, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100.
6. Since the applicants have come before this Court against the summoning order and bailable warrants which have been issued against them for not appearing before the court below, the present matter stands disposed with the direction to the applicants to appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of ten days from today and place all the relevant facts as well as provision of law. The applicants would also be at liberty to plead before the learned Magistrate about the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the learned Magistrate in the present matter. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate shall pass an order on this aspect. However, in case the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the matter falls within its jurisdiction, he shall consider the bail application of the present applicants in accordance with law considering the nature of the case, preferably the same day.
7. It is, however, made clear that till then warrants shall not be executed against the applicants.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 31.10.2017 Ankit/