Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 425 (ALL)

Rajesh Lal v. State of U. P.

2017-02-06

BACHCHOO LAL

body2017
JUDGMENT BachchooLal,J. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of application under section 482 Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1432 of 2012, M/s Sen advertising Vs. M/s Gayatri International Institute of Planning and Management and others, (insofar as applicants are concerned) pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Gautambudh Nagar u/s 138 Negotiable Instruction Act P.S. Sector 20 Noida District Gautmbudh Nagar including the summoning order dated 24.01.2013 as well as order dated 24.10.2016 issuing N.B.W. against the applicants. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that applicant nos. 1 and 2 were working as directors in the institute and were entrusted with the work of looking after non financial work. The applicant no. 3 was neither involved in any kind of institute's work and nor was ever director. In the institution only his wife who is applicant no. 2 was director. It has further been submitted that applicant no. 1 issued release order for advertisement on 11.7.2012 and 30.7.2012 and the advertisement date on which the adds were to be given in the newspaper. It has further been submitted that applicant nos. 1 and 2 on 31.7.2012 gave their resignation letters from the post of the director of the institute and the same were accepted by means of letter dated 31.7.2012. It has further been submitted that the alleged cheque was issued by the Chairman of the institute who had complete financial power and who was the single signatory on the cheque. The cheque was issued after 1st August 2012 when the applicant nos. 1 and 2 have already resigned from the posts. The financial powers of institute were in the hands of chairman namely, Shishupal Shankar and applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with any kind of financial power and they have never issued any cheque to opp. party no. 2. No offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order dated 24.1.2013 is not in accordance with law. The non bailable warrant has also been issued against the applicants vide order dated 24.10.2016. The applicants have not committed the alleged offence, they have falsely been implicated in this case. party no. 2. No offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order dated 24.1.2013 is not in accordance with law. The non bailable warrant has also been issued against the applicants vide order dated 24.10.2016. The applicants have not committed the alleged offence, they have falsely been implicated in this case. On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of evidence available on record. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. A perusal of record shows that applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of evidence available on record. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. 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 applicants. In this case N.B.W. has been issued against the applicants vide order dated 24.10.2016. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the proceedings of aforementioned case as well as summoning order order dated 24.1.2013 and order of N.B.W. dated 24.10.2016, therefore, prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal KamlendraPratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.