Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Parihar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22839 of 2016
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Parihar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Viveka Nand Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
The applicant has been summoned for prosecution of offence under section 138 N.I. Act in complaint case no. 1300 of 2015 (Smt. Beby Upadhyay Vs. Vinod Kumar Parihar) by the court of ACJM, Court No. 5, Agra. The proceeding of this complaint case has been challenged in present application. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that before filing of the complaint case and before the presentation of cheque in question in bank, the FIR was lodged in police that complainant had forcibly obtained the signatures of applicant on cheques no. 641871 to 641885. His contention is that on the basis of said police report, matter was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted against the complainant. In spite of it, trial court had summoned the applicant only on the ground of dishonour of cheque and service of legal notice, without considering the contents of reply of notice by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also contended that there was no reason for applicant to issue cheques in favour of complainant and that there is no reason for prosecution of applicant for dishonour of those cheques, which were result of threat of life to applicant.
In present matter, at the time of passing the order of cognizance and summoning, the trial court has considered that cheque relating to bank account of applicant was drawn in the name of complainant-OP No.-2, who had presented them in the bank, and after dishonour of cheque, he had served legal notice; and when amount of cheque was not paid to him, then he had filed complaint. These facts were prima facie established before trial court, which were sufficient for passing order of cognizance of aforesaid offence and summoning the applicant. The arguments placed before this Court by learned counsel for the applicants are in nature of defence version, which may be considered by trial court at appropriate stage, when evidences in that regard are adduced and facts are proved. At this stage, on the basis of defence version, which are still to be proved, there is no justification for quashing the proceedings of trial court or making any interference in it.
This contention of learned counsel for the applicant is unacceptable that since police had submitted charge-sheet against the complaint regarding cheques in question, therefore proceeding of complaint case should not be carried out. The enquiry made by trial court of Judicial Magistrate himself under Chapter XV CrPC is on higher pedestal than that of investigation made by police. Therefore the inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised for quashing the proceedings of trial court, on the basis of any police report, the facts of which are yet to be proved.
In view of the above and after consideration of record, it is found that proceedings of trial court are being carried out after following procedure and law without any illegality or infirmity. There is no reason to interfere in said proceedings. Therefore, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2016
SR
