Allahabad High Court
Hari Kishan Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24689 of 2019
Applicant :- Hari Kishan Gupta And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avadhesh Narayan Tiwari,Deepak Du
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Deepak Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Avadhesh Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri A.D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2145 of 2019 (Rajeev Kumar Girhotra vs. Hari Kishan Gupta and another) (Erstwhile Case Crime NO.620 of 2017) under sections 307/34 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun at Orai pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai along with summoning order dated 15.05.2019 and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court that earlier a civil suit no. 88 of 2016 was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the wife of the accused-applicant no. 1 for specific performance, which is at page 69 of the paper book. He has further argued that a company was constituted in the name and style of M/s. Bundelkhand Ispat Melting Pvt. Ltd. in which the accused-applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 were Directors, apart from other Directors of that company. Liability of seven crores had accrued which was thrown upon the accused-applicant and in order to put pressure in the above two cases, this false case has been initiated against the accused-applicants by opposite party no. 2. He has also argued that on the date of occurrence accused-applicants were not present at the scene of occurrence. After lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and final report was submitted but the trial court has summoned the accused-applicant rejecting the final report erroneously, hence the summoning order needs to be quashed along with the entire proceedings.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of injured eye witnesses namely Ajai Kumar Girhotra as well as eye witness Owaish, both of them have clearly stated that the accused-applicants have made fire upon the opposite party no. 2. It is further argued that the injuries which have been caused to the opposite party no. 2 are annexed at page-28 which showed that fire injury was suffered by the opposite party no. 2.
From the evidence on record, I find that it cannot be said that no cognizance offence has been made out against the accused applicants.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in accordance with law. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
AU
