Allahabad High Court
Irtaza Hasan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 February, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 665 of 2023
Petitioner :- Irtaza Hasan And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adil Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed to set aside the judgment and order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.222 of 2022 (Irtaza Hasan and another vs. State of U.P. and another) by Session Judge, Amroha as well as summoning order dated 10.3.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, District Amroha in Complaint Case No.1519 of 2021 (Mohammad Zafar vs. Intekhab and others) under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Amroha, District Amroha.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. They are summoned in a complaint case to face trial for charge under Section 420 IPC, which is punishable for maximum imprisonment up to 7 years. The petitioner No.2 has completed M.B.B.S. from Russia. Respondent No.2 has stated in complaint that he had given a total of Rs.4,80,000/- to petitioners whereas he has admitted that only Rs.2,60,000/- was transferred through the RTGS for seeking admission of his daughter in some medical college. The petitioners have committed no offence. The petitioner No.2 had got enrolled the name of the daughter of respondent No.2 in Aaush University of Russia on 15.2.2020, during the pandemic, which incurred considerable expenses in process of enrollment and the same was disbursed through the amount taken from respondent No.2 through RTGS. Petitioner no.1 have nothing to do with the matter. He is only implicated due to the fact that he is a retired teacher. The petitioners are not having any prior criminal history. He lastly submitted that the respondent No.2 had also file a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the basis of same facts with a view to harass the petitioners on the amount, which has been transferred in the account of petitioner No.1 by respondent 2 through RTGS. Therefore, the impugned summoning order issued by learned court below dated 10.3.2022 may be set aside as no offence is made out against the petitioners.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that from the bare perusal of complaint version, statement of complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie, offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioners and there appears no illegality in the impugned order.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and material placed on record, it cannot be inferred on the force of submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the ground taken in petition that the impugned summoning order has been passed without application of judicial mind or there is any illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is hereby refused.
However, it is provided that in case, the petitioners appear before the trial court within four weeks from today and apply for bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 5191 of 2021.
For the period of four weeks from today or till the time of appearance of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the above case.
With the above observations and directions, this application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.2.2023
Kamarjahan
