Allahabad High Court
Amit @ Tinku vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 November, 2022
Bench: Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment reserved on 21.11.2022
Judgment delivered on 28.11.2022
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23663 of 2022
Applicant :- Amit @ Tinku
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.7.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 277 of 2021 (Amit Kumar Vs. State) as well as summoning order dated 12.11.2021 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 303/9 of 2021 (Barham Singh Vs. Amit @ Tinku) under section 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar.
3. On complaint filed by O.P. No. 2 applicant has been summoned for offence under section 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC vide order dated 12.11.2021. It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is an old age person suffering from heart disease. He had employed the accused as a house keeper (Chaukidar). The complainant used to give blank cheques to the accused putting his signature on it for receiving payment of sugar cane from the bank, as accused used to take payment from the bank and he was doing this work since last several years. The complainant gave a cheque no. 185898. The accused informed him that the aforesaid cheque has been destroyed while washing clothes, then the complainant issue another cheque no. 185899 and accused took its payment on 29.1.2019. The complainant removed the accused from house keeping and has also filed a suit no. 490 of 2020 against accused and his wife to restrain them from interfering in possession of the complainant. On getting this information the accused misused the cheque no. 185898 by filling it with an amount of Rs. 10 lacs while he it well within his knowledge that the said cheque has been given to receive payment of sugar cane. In this way the accused has cheated and committed forgery with the complainant. After the evidence under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the impugned summoning order has been passed. The applicant filed a revision against it which has also been dismissed by the other impugned order dated 2.7.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant and O.P. No. 2 are well known to each other. On the basis of their relations on an oral agreement some business of sugar cane was going on between them. O.P. No. 2 embezzled Rs. 11 lacs of the applicant and he did not return it but after intervention of some relatives he issued a cheque no. 185898 of Rs. 10 lacs on 15.10.2020 in favour of O.P. No. 2. The applicant presented this cheque in the bank on 3.11.2020 but it was dishonored due to insufficiency of fund. Thereafter applicant gave a legal notice to O.P. No. 2 and filed a complaint under section 138 N.I. Act. After filing of the complaint by the applicant in counter blast the O.P. No. 2 has filed this complaint with false and concocted allegations. The learned Magistrate without considering and perusing the facts and circumstances of the case has summoned the applicant in a mechanical manner. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision which has also been dismissed by the Sessions Judge without application of judicial mind in arbitrary manner. It is further contended that present complaint has been filed with malafide intention. It is a counter blast case only for the purpose of harassment. Both the orders passed by the courts below are illegal and arbitrary.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.G.A. submitted that there are allegations of cheating and forgery against the applicant. The O.P. No. 2 has produced independent witness bank manager to support the allegations of the complaint. He has fully supported the allegations of the complaint. It is further contended that under section 482 Cr.P.C. proceeding can be quashed only on the grounds given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335). This has also been observed by this Court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5690 of 2021 Jahur Khan and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 30.6.2021. The present case does not fall under any of the categories mentioned therein.
6. The allegations of the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence. The complainant has examined himself and has produced three witnesses including one independent witness Bank Manager who has corroborated the allegations made in the complaint. The learned Magistrate has narrated the entire facts, the evidence adduced by the complainant and after analysing the material on record has recorded the satisfaction that from the material available on record a prima facie case is made out against the applicant-accused and consequently has passed the impugned summoning order. It is settled principle of law that at this stage only prima facie case is to be seen. The rest arguments assailed by the learned counsel for the applicant are disputed matter of fact which is matter of trial and can not be considered and adjudicated in a proceeding U/s 482 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned summoning order. There is no sufficient ground to quash the summoning order or the entire proceeding of the complaint case.
7. The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date:- 28.11.2022
Masarrat
