Pramod Teotia vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 21745 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163658
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19596 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Pramod Teotia
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Suphal Shukla,Pradeep Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for assailing the summoning order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.5989 of 2021 (Ram Pal Singh Vs. Pramod Teotia and others), under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

3. Opposite party No.2 has filed complaint levelling allegation against the present applicant that he has refused to give money amounting Rs. 42,04,395/- which was due owing to the construction work done by the complainant. It is further alleged that the present applicant has filed a false police case with respect to missing of cheque which was in his possession. Learned Judicial Magistrate after going through the contents of the complaint and the statement made by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses namely Heera Lal Ahirwar and Nawal Kishore under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and also the police report submitted under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. has issued the process against the present applicant under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, vide order impugned dated 19.11.2022, which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no existence of any agreement between the parties with respect to the construction alleged to have been done by the opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that the opposite party No.2 (complainant) himself has taken an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- and a cheques amounting Rs.18,00,000/-. However, to evade the aforesaid transaction, false and malicious prosecution has been made by the opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that no incriminating material is available on record to prove the occurrence of the crime as mentioned in the complaint. It is further submitted that owing to mischievous conduct of the opposite party No.2, present applicant has also filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however, same is rejected.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that from the face of record, prima facie, the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of crime cannot be ruled out. Learned trial court has conducted a proper inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and called for police report. Learned trial court has issued the process against the present applicant considering his guilt on the basis of the statements made by the witnesses and the police report. It is further contended that the innocence of the present applicant can not be inferred at this stage, which can be adjudicated upon by the learned trial court more appropriately after appreciating the evidence to be adduced by the parties. At this juncture, no legal ground is made out to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings, as such, the instant application is liable to be rejected, being misconceived and devoid on merits.

6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it reveals that the complaint has been moved on behalf of the opposite party No.2 levelling allegation of criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation against the present applicant, who has allegedly averted the payment of money to the opposite party No.2 in lieu of the construction work done by him under the mutual agreement took place between the parties. In support of his case, complainant has made his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. articulating entire incident to make out the case against the present applicant for the commission of the crime as mentioned in the complaint. Learned Magistrate has observed that he has issued a direction for conducting inquiry with respect to the occurrence of the offence as alleged in the FIR and, in pursuance to such direction, police has submitted his report under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. supporting the case of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. Material which was available before the learned Magistrate while issuing the process against the present applicant are, in my opinion, sufficient to implicate the present applicant, prima facie, in the offence under which process has been issued. An inquiry conducted by the learned Magistrate under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. indicates the bona-fide efforts made by the learned Magistrate to find out the truth of the case and after satisfying himself qua, prima facie, guilt of the present applicant in the occurrence of the offence has issued the process. It is no more res-integra that the evidence of the defence is not required to be examined at the time of issuing the process rather, material available on record while issuing the process have to be looked into.

7. In the instant matter, the allegations as made by the complainant is corroborated, prima facie, with the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses namely Heera Lal and Nawal Kishore under Section 202 Cr.P.C. More so police report on the inquiry conducted under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. was also available showing, prima facie, the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of the crime as mentioned in the complaint.

8. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the summoning order dated 19.11.2022 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate. There is no justification to entertain the instant application in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I found no abuse of process of Court or any justifiable ground to pass an order to secure the ends of justice. The applicant has still an opportunity to contest before the court below to prove his innocence.

9. Resultantly, the instant application, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.

10. Before parting, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in all sections, as mentioned in the FIR, maximum punishment is seven years or less than 7 years, therefore, the bail application if filed by the present applicant may be considered in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 773. In the cited case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given certain guidelines for deciding the bail applications by categorising the offences.

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I think it appropriate that in case, the present applicant appears/surrenders before the concerned court below and move bail application within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, expeditiously as early as possible.

Order Date :- 11.8.2023

Mini