Allahabad High Court
Dr. Sunil Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 March, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9841 of 2019
Applicant :- Dr. Sunil Gupta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 2.1.2019 passed by learned C.J.M., Mathura in Case No. 326 of 2016 (State Vs. Dr. Sunil Gupta and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2015, under section 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Mathura.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a doctor at Faridabad (Haryana) and he has no concern with the present case and no money has been transferred in his account by the O.P. No. 2 or any person but the O.P. No. 2 has given the money to co-accused Pradeep Gupta who is the brother of applicant and applicant has no concern with his brother as he is living separately and it appears that the present FIR has been lodged only to make pressure upon the co-accused Pradeep Gupta and his family members and O.P. No. 2 has no knowledge about Pradeep Gupta and his wife so he has falsely implicated the applicant in this case. Prima facie no offence under section 420, 406 IPC is made out against the applicant, therefore, he is liable to be discharged from the present offence but the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge application of the applicant vide its order dated 2.1.2019 which is not in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that I.O. has not conducted the investigation thoroughly. In fact, no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that applicant is named in the FIR. In FIR it has been mentioned that on 14.7.2015 the applicant, co-accused Pradeep Gupta and wife of Pradeep Gupta reached at the house of informant/O.P. No. 2 and told him that they were running a Vison Alfa Education Private Ltd. Company situated at Mathura which prepared the furniture, Ply board toys and books etc. The applicant and other co-accused offered the O.P. No. 2 to become partner in the company of applicant and other co-accused by paying Rs. 56 lacs. The O.P. No. 2 gave Rs. 4,50,000/- cash to applicant and other co-accused on 15.7.2015 and he also issued a cheque of Rs. 1 lac which was deposited in the bank account of co-accused Pradeep Gupta. Pradeep Gupta has given 3 cheques to O.P. No. 2 which have become dishonoured. When the O.P. No. 2 reached at the company of applicant and other co-accused he found locked. In FIR it has further been mentioned that applicant and other co-accused after taking money from other several persons escaped away. The informant/O.P. No. 2 in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has also supported the FIR version. The applicant is involved in the alleged offence. From the material on record a prima facie offence under section 420 and 406 IPC is made out against the applicant. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record has dismissed the discharge application of the applicant. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 2.1.2019.
A perusal of the record shows that in FIR it has been mentioned that applicant and other co-accused went at the house of O.P. No. 2 where they offered the O.P. No. 2 to become partner in the company running by the applicant and other co-accused. In FIR it has been mentioned that O.P. No. 2 has given Rs. 4,50,000/- to applicant and other co-accused and one cheque was also issued by O.P. No. 2 in favour of co-accused Pradeep Gupta. The alleged company was not found in running place. The allegation of cheating has been made by the O.P. No. 2 against the applicant and other co-accused. Although it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a doctor and is living at Faridabad (Haryana) but the plea of alibi can not be decided at this stage. The disputed defence of the accused can not be considered at this stage. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has rejected the discharge application of the applicant. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to set-aside the impugned order dated 2.1.2019 in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.3.2019
Masarrat
