Allahabad High Court
Mr. Gaurav Bhadri vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2959 of 2021
Applicant :- Mr. Gaurav Bhadri
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Vikram Singh,Naved Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr.Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. Despite service of notice no one appears for opposite party no.2.
2. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet No.1 dated 06.11.2017 for offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC, as well as entire proceedings of FIR No.75 of 2017.
3. The petitioner is Area Sales Manager of Redington (India) Limited, which is a distributor of Apple Products. Nesco Infosystem Private Ltd., and J.M.K. Technologies Private Limited are dealers.
4. An FIR under Sections 406, 420, 147, 323, 506, 504, 120B IPC at Case Crime No.75 of 2017 came to be registered on a complaint of Mr.Dharmendra Gupta, Director, Nesco Infosystem Private Limited alleging that the petitioner herein introduced him with Om Prakash Sawaria, Mamta Sawaria, Vinod Sawaria, Satyanarayan Sankhala and Suneeta Sankhala. It is further alleged that Nesco Infosystem Private Limited gave Rs.1,13,12,500/- for orders of Apple products to be taken from J.M.K. Technologies Private Limited. However, Apple products were not delivered by J.M.K. Technologies Private Limited to Nesco Infosystem Private Limited, and this amount was misappropriated.
5. In the FIR, it was alleged that the complainant apprehended that the petitioner was also involved in the commission of the offence. During the course of investigation, the complainant has given statement to that effect in his initial statement but in his subsequent statement, he has not named the petitioner for his involvement in any manner in the commission of the offence. Except for statement of the complainant that he apprehends that the petitioner was involved along with other co-accused for commission of the offence, there is nothing on record which would suggest involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. Further, the dispute is between Nesco Infosystem Private Limited and J.M.K. Technologies Private Limited. The petitioner is nowhere involved in dealing with these two entities. Other four witnesses are the formal witnesses, and from the perusal of the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., hardly any offence is made out against the petitioner. There is no allegation of cheating against the petitioner. Nothing was delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner was also not involved in any transaction of the complainant or the co-accused. No offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.
6. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr vs Sudha Seetharam & Anr: (2019) 16 SCC 739, this Court is of the view that even if the allegation in the FIR and the statement of the complainant are taken on their face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner.
7. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law, therefore, the same are required to be quashed.
8. The petition is allowed. Impugned proceedings of the charge-sheet No.1 dated 06.11.2017 for offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC, as well as entire proceedings of FIR No.75 of 2017 in respect of the petitioner are hereby quashed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 5.8.2022
prateek
