Allahabad High Court
Gopi Krishna Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4966 of 2019
Petitioner :- Gopi Krishna Gupta And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 28 of 2012, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Harbansmohal, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of summoning order dated 8.12.2017 pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8,, Kanpur Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that summoning order passed in the matter is illegal. Same was challenged before the Sessions Judge concerned which was also dismissed on insufficient grounds. It is further prayed that agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 and 3. Petitioners are the tenants whereas the opposite party no. 2 and 3 are the landlords. Eviction suit was allowed. Revision/appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Thereafter petitioners approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction and the orders passed by the courts below were stayed. Since the opposite party no. 2 and 3 are not returning the earnest amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, due to that reason present complaint was filed. Number of criminal cases have also been initiated by the opposite party no. 2 and 3 against the petitioners.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, complaint was filed in the year 2011. Eviction suit was filed in the year 2014. Stay order was granted by this Court in the year 2017. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and going through the entire record and also keeping in view the aforesaid facts mentioned in the application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as well as statement of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. At this stage the court dealing with the matter has to see only prima facie case. From the perusal of the entire record it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. Facts raised at the Bar require leading of evidence which can appropriately be dealt with during trial after evidence. Hence, the prayer made in the present petition is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitionersprays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the petitioners.
Hence, it is directed that in case the petitioners surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 45 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the petitioners. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the petitioners for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Sachdeva
