Allahabad High Court
Smt. Suman Tomar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 July, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106990
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4474 of 2023
Revisionist :- Smt. Suman Tomar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shahabuddin
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/ opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat in Case No. 223 of 2018 (Darpan Katiyar Vs. Smt. Suman Tomar), under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, police station Bilhaur, district Kanpur Nagar, whereby discharge application under Section 251 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist has been rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has not taken any money from opposite party no. 2 and she does not know him. In fact, one Ravish Katiyar, who is friend of complainant Darpan Katiyar, had taken 08 blank cheques from the revisionist Smt. Suman Tomar on the pretext of getting a loan of Rs. 30,000/- sanctioned from Onara Company but no loan was sanctioned. On making demand, Ravish Katiyar instead of returning her cheque given cheque no. 890543 to his friend ? complainant Darpan Katiyar @ Pintu. Thereafter, she has closed her account in the year 2018. The complainant with dishonest intention by filling up the cheque on his own presented the same in the bank but the same was not encashed and returned by the bank. All the allegations made in the complaint are totally false and baseless. The revisionist has been falsely implicated. No offence is made out against the revisionist. Learned Court below illegally dismissed the discharge application of the revisionist, therefore, impugned order dated 23.05.2023 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that it is settled law that at the stage of discharge, the Court below is required to see whether on uncontroverted allegations as per the prosecution case and the material relied in support of same discloses the commission of any offence against the accused or not. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the pre-trial stage. Considering the allegations and material evidence on record, the prima facie offence alleged against the accused/revisionist is made out, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Having examined the matter in its entirety and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is the case of the complainant that the accused Smt. Suman Tomar had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2.50 lacs from him on the assurance that she will pay the same in two installments. Thereafter, she has given cheque in question to him but on presenting the same, cheque was dishonoured. I also find that learned Magistrate while rejecting the application under Section 251 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subramaniam Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2004) 13 SCC 324. The grounds taken in the revision reveal that many of them relate to disputed questions of facts. This Court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court at the appropriate stage. It is crystallized judicial view that at the stage of discharge, the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person.
Considering the facts, circumstances and materials available on record of this case, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order, therefore, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The concerned Court below while passing the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 has considered all the relevant materials on record and decided the discharge application of the revisionist in accordance with law in the light of well settled principle laid down by the Apex Court. The revisionist has a remedy under the law to raise all such plea in his defence before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
In view of the above, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
It is made clear that any observation made herein above, shall not affect the merit of the case.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024
Shubham
