Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2909 (ALL)

Rakesh Sharma v. State of U. P.

2016-08-23

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2016
JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records. The applicant has been summoned for prosecution of offence under section 138 N.I. Act by Judicial Magistrate, Bahedi, Bareilly in complaint case no. 62/2015 (Anshuman Singh Vs. Rakesh Sharma). The proceedings of this complaint case is being challenged through present application. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that before filing of the complaint, the applicant had moved application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed and FIR was lodged against the present complainant Anshuman Singh for offences under sections 406, 419 IPC. He pointed out that in said FIR, it was stated that Anshuman Singh had deceived and manipulated the obtaining of two blank cheques from applicant, so that he may misuse them. He pointed out that investigation of said case is pending with police. His further contention was that summoning order passed by trial court on 27.5.2015 in complaint case under challenge has been passed after registration of criminal case against complainant and it should be quashed. The proceedings before the police on FIR lodged by applicant is pending and no police report has been filed after application. Apart from it, prima faice it appears that trial court had found that there is prima faice evidence of the fact that applicant had handed over cheque of Rs. 8 Lakhs to complainant in discharge of his liability of payment, but said cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, notice was served on applicant, but he had not responded nor returned the money, so complaint was filed. On these facts, trial court had found prima facie case of summoning the applicant under section 138 N.I. Act. There appears no illegality in impugned order of summoning or proceedings being carried by trial court. The contentions of learned counsel for the applicant are in nature of defence version, which may be appreciated by trial court at appropriate stage, when evidences in that regard are adduced and facts are proved. At this stage, there is no propriety for interference in the proceedings of trial court on the basis of alleged defence version, which is still not proved conclusively. There is no reason to interfere in proceedings of trial court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this application is dismissed.