Allahabad High Court
Mukesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2015
Bench: Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16127 of 2015
Applicant :- Mukesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Lal,P.K. Chaurasia
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 07.04.2015 as well as the non bailable warrant dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No.142 of 2015, under Sections 323, 342, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Khurja, District Bulandshahr.
According to the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant's son, who is alleged to be of weak mind, was forcibly abducted and made to execute an agreement for sale in favour of the accused of which the applicant is stated to be a witness. There is allegation against the applicant also to the effect that he had taken the complainant's son for the said purpose. The allegation is also to the effect that no advance payment, as alleged in the agreement for sale, was made to the complainant's son and when a request was made for cancellation of the agreement, the accused had threatened the complainant. The allegations made in the complaint have been supported by statement of the witnesses as well as the complainant. The court below finding that there is a prima facie case to proceed against the applicant has summoned the accused.
The learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the summoning order as well as the consequential proceeding on the ground that it is a pure civil dispute which has been given colour of a criminal case. It has been submitted that false allegations have been levelled when, in fact, the agreement for sale had been entered into by complainant's son with full awareness of its consequences.
Be that as it may, since the complaint allegations and the statement made in support thereof do make out a prima facie case, the complaint and consequential proceeding including the summoning order cannot be quashed. It is well settled that both civil and criminal can be availed simultaneously if ingredients of a criminal offence are made out from the allegations made in the complaint. I, accordingly, do not find any good reason to quash the summoning order.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants states that since non bailable warrant has been issued by the court below vide order dated 18.05.2015, therefore, some protection may be given to the applicant.
Considering the facts of the case, it is hereby provided that the applicant may appear before the court concerned, within three weeks from today, and apply for bail, which shall be considered by the court in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks or till filing of the bail application, whichever is earlier, the non bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall remain in abeyance. It is further provided that if the applicant does not appear within the aforesaid period, non bailable warrant issued shall be executed against the applicant.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.6.2015
AKShukla/-
