Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Bhatnagar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7533 of 2023
Applicant :- Sanjay Bhatnagar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Umang Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Umang Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Sanjay Bhatnagar with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the judgement and order dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Bareilly, in Criminal Revision No. 410/2019; Vikas Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and another.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned judgement and order dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Bareilly, in Criminal Revision No. 410/2019; Vikas Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and another during the pendency of the present application before the Hon'ble Court.
And / or to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
The facts of the present case are that a first information report was lodged on 13.09.2011 as Case Crime No. 2791 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. by Vikas Agarwal the opposite party no.2 against the applicant which went out for investigation and a final report was dated 17.10.2011 was submitted by the investigating agency. Subsequently a protest petition was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the said final report which was rejected vide order dated 13.05.2019 and the final report dated 17.10.2011 was accepted by the concerned court. The informant aggrieved by the same filed a revision before the revisional court as Criminal Revision No. 410 of 2019 (Vikas Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and another) which vide judgment and order dated 20.10.2022 was allowed and the order impugned therein dated 13.05.2019 was set-aside and an order was passed that the trial court shall hear the matter afresh and after hearing the parties decide the matter in accordance with law. The present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the said judgement and order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the revisional court.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the revisional court has failed to consider the fact that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature after which a first information report dated 13.09.2011 was lodged giving a case of civil nature a criminal colour. The court further ignored the fact that criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant are malicious and with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance. The revisional court has not exercised its jurisdiction properly and by overstepping its jurisdiction as an appellate court passed the impugned judgement and order. It is argued that as such the order of the revisional court is bad in the eyes of law as no criminal case is made out and the present application be allowed and the said judgement and order be set-aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that the order impugned dated 20.10.2022 has only set-aside the order impugned therein dated 13.05.2019 accepting the final report. It is argued that till date there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has been summoned to face trial. It is argued that the revisional court has although set-aside the order impugned therein but has remanded the matter back to be heard afresh by the trial court and pass orders in accordance with law after hearing the parties. It is argued that since the trial court has yet to pass any order as of now by which the applicant could say that he is aggrieved, the applicant has per-maturely approached this Court in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the present application be dismissed at this stage.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that subsequent to filing of final report a protest petition was filed which was rejected by the trial court and the final report was accepted against which a revision was preferred before the District & Sessions Judge concerned and the said court vide its judgement and order dated 20.10.2022 allowed the said revision setting aside the order dated 13.05.2019 impugned therein and remanded the matter to be heard afresh and directed the trial court to pass appropriate orders after granting opportunity to the parties of hearing. The applicant has not been summoned till date. The judgement and order impugned does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The revisional court has exercised its jurisdiction as per law and has passed the order impugned in accordance with law. The applicant as of now has not been summoned by the trial court. No ground exists to interfere.
The present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2023
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
