Allahabad High Court
Kritagya Agarwal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35391
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7890 of 2022
Applicant :- Kritagya Agarwal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Misra,Vishal Singh Dang
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishal Singh Dang
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
List has been revised and the case is being taken up in the revised call.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the applicant, however, Shri Vishal Singh Dang, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party No.1 are present.
Shri Vishal Singh Dang, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that he has informed Shri Shailendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant over telephone and has tried to give a written notice about the mentioning of the case to be taken up out of turn but learned Counsel for the applicant did not put in appearance to argue this case today, the said notice is taken on record.
Thereafter, when the matter was taken up, this Court asked Shri Vishal Singh Dang, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 to give one more phone call to learned Counsel for the applicant and apprise this Court about the conversation after ten minutes, on which Shri Vishal Singh Dang, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 after ten minutes informed this Court that he is not ready to argue this case today, thus, this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments in this case.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 22.03.2022 alongwith the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned summoning order passed by learned Additional Court No.1, Lucknow, in Criminal Complaint Case No.59647 of 2021, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Kulwant Kaur vs. Kritagya Agarwal and Another, and it has been further sought the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No.59647 of 2021 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
This Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 passed the following order:-
"Heard Shri Puneet Saxena, holding brief of Shri Sailendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vishal Singh Dang, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Shri Hari Om Singh, learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is ready to furnish a draft of Rs. 7 lac which he had issued a cheque in favour of opposite party no.2 and he shall also pursue his brother to pay the remaining amount to the opposite party no. 2.
List this case on 16.1.2023 for further argument.
In the meantime, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit."
Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023 passed the following order:-
"Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that he has filed counter affidavit in registry on 12.01.2023 but the same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace out counter affidavit of opposite party no. 2 and place it on record.
List on 07.02.2023."
Thereafter, this case was listed on 13.06.2023 but no one was present on behalf of the applicant to argue this case and consequently, this case again listed on several dates i.e. on 05.07.2023, 23.11.2023, 02.12.2023, 11.12.2023, 29.01.2024, 20.02.2024, 29.02.2024, 06.03.2024, 13.03.2024 but the case was not argued.
This case was again listed before this Court on 01.04.2024 and this Court passed the following order:-
"Shri Shailendra Kumar Misra, learned Counsel for the applicant has sent his illness slip today. However, Shri Vishal Singh Dang, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 are present.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the applicant has not made the compliance of the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by this Court till date. Thus, he submits that matter may be adjourned today on the ground of illness of learned Counsel for the applicant but the applicant may be directed to make compliance of the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by this Court.
In view of the above, the applicant is directed to make compliance of the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by this Court on or before the next date of listing.
List/put up this case on 05.04.2024 peremptorily. "
On 01.04.2024, it was informed by learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the applicant has not made the compliance of the order dated 12.12.2022 passed this Court, therefore, this Court vide order dated 01.04.2024 granted further time to the applicant to make compliance of the order dated 12.12.2022 and listed the case peremptorily.
Thereafter, this case was listed on 29.04.2024 but was again adjourned and was directed to be listed today.
Today, when the case was taken up in the revised call, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant to argue this case despite repeated intimation by learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 as mentioned above, thus, it appears that learned Counsel for the applicant or his client has lost interest to contest this case.
In view of the above, this Court has no option but to decide this case on merits.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.
At the stage of issuing process the trial court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue.
In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of summoning order/charge sheet or criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of summoning order/charge sheet/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
After considering the averments made in this application and hearing learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 and after going through the entire material placed on record and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned summoning order dated 22.03.2022 and the Criminal Complaint Case No.59647 of 2021, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as this case is of the year 2021 and the applicant did not pay even a single penny to the opposite party No.2 in lieu of the cheques issued to the opposite party No.2 by the applicant amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only), thus, the present application being devoid of merit and lack of prosecution is liable to be rejected.
In view thereof, the present application is hereby rejected.
Trial Court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it and pass an order in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties unless there is any other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Piyush/-
