Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3538 (ALL)

Mohd. Tajuddin v. State of U. P.

2015-11-16

OM PRAKASH VII

body2015
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII, J. On oral prayer, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the description of the court below in the application during the course of the day. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 730 of 2015 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station, Khakhreru, District - Fatehpur arising out of summoning order dated 29.7.2015 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Section is not made out against the applicant. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused. 7. However, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 8. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned. 9. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.