Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Bhalla vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94483
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16632 of 2025
Applicant :- Rajeev Bhalla
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- V.K. Agnihotri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri V.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.
2. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 17411 of 2017 (Dr. Arun Jain vs. Rajeev Bhalla and another) U/s 420 IPC, P.S. Phase III, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ FTC Gautam Budh Nagar as well as summoning order dated 19.04.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a proceeding was initiated by the opposite party no.2 U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 04.05.2017 with an allegation that the opposite party no.2 is a doctor who runs a child hospital and when he came in contact with the applicant and others co-accused then on assurance and allurement was extended that the applicant should invest in a residential project for purchase of the flat. On the assurance of the applicant, it is alleged that certain payment were sought to be made. However, it reveals that subsequently that the money which was being taken for allotment of the flat, was not being utilised for the same and it was surreptitiously diverted and when the applicant asked for return of the money then the cheque is stated to have been drawn which came to be dishonoured. Post recording of the statements, the applicant has been summoned U/s 420 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant happened to be a director of the said company and while inviting attention towards page-63 of the paper book, it is being sought to be contended that the applicant resigned wayback in the year 2015 on 25.03.2015 and further he is a cancer patient who was used to meet the opposite party no.2. He further submits that no role whatsoever can be attributed to the applicant as whatever cheques which was stated to have been drawn and dishonoured was of Sri Pramod Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent in that regard.
5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that the present application has been preferred in the month of May, 2025 whereas the order of summoning the applicant dated 19.04.2018 more than seven years have passed. He further submits that whatever arguments are being sought to be raised they are the matter of defences and in particular what would be relevant is the fact that the allegation are there which invoke the penal provision U/s 420 IPC.
6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
7. Apparently, on a proceeding being initiated U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the case transformed into a complaint case U/s 420 IPC. The allegation in the complaint are pin pointed against the applicant as well as Sri Pramod Kumar Singh. Further, this Court at this juncture is not require to delve into the factual issues as these are the subject of matter of trial. As regards the delay of seven years in approaching the court is concerned, though the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had no knowledge about the same but this Court is not going into the said issue even after a period of seven years particularly in view of the allegations contained therein. Accordingly, no good ground is made out and the present application is hereby rejected.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that suitable direction be issued in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 with relation to enlargement on bail.
9. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay.
Order Date :- 2.6.2025 /C. MANI
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
