Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Chand Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy ... on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5361 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep Chand Gupta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy Home Civil Sectt Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Kant Mishra,Karuna Shankar Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyendra Nath Pandey
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 5456 of 2013, under Section 138 of N. I. Act, 1881, P.S. Gudamba District Lucknow pending in the court of Addl/Special Judge, Court No. 5, Lucknow including the summoning order dated 15.12.2012 and the NBW dated 15.5.2014 issued against the applicants.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. Record discloses that court below took cognizance and summoned the applicants vide order dated 15.12.2012 but they could not appear and thereafter non bailable warrants were issued against the applicants. A perusal of the record reveals that the summoning order was passed in accordance with law. Non-bailable warrant was issued when the applicants did not appear before the court concerned. Issuance of non-bailable warrant is within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as NBW is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).
As such application has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.9.2022
RavindraKSingh
