Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 277 (ALL)

Arvindra Kumar v. State of U. P.

2023-01-28

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT : [Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.] 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet No. 36 of 2020 dated 01.11.2020 and Cognizance order dated 06.04.2021, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 7201 of 2021 (State Vs. Ratnesh Kumar & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0020 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 476, 478, 471, I.P.C., Police Station -Bithauli, District -Etawah, pending in the court of Upper Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 4/Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. 3. Submission is, the chargesheet was submitted under Sections -419, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. Without any material or basis, the learned court below has erred, amongst others in taking cognizance under Section 476 and 478 I.P.C. Also, it has been submitted the FIR allegations emerged in haste and on the basis of online verification sought to be made. No physical verification was made during investigation to establish that the applicant had relied on as forged and fabricated document. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA would submit the summoning order suffers from typographical/clerical error inasmuch as sections description 467 and 468 have been wrongly mentioned as 476 and 478. As to the other objection raised by learned counsel for the applicants, it has been strenuously urged, it would remain open to the applicants to raise such defence plea as may be available at the relevant stage, including discharge. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, as to the first objection though attractive, at the same time it appears, no FIR was lodged under Sections 476 and 478 I.P.C. and no charge-sheet came to be submitted against the applicant under those sections. Prima facie, it does appear, the summoning order suffers from a typographical error. At the same time, in view of the fact noted above, the learned court below may not proceed against the applicants in pursuance of the order dated 06.04.2021 without considering if the summoning order suffers from a typographical error. 6. As to the other objection, insofar as it is not disputed, the online verification did not lead to confirmation, the genuineness of the documents relied by the applicants cannot be accepted at this stage. The genuineness of the document may remain to be examined at the trial, at the appropriate stage. 6. As to the other objection, insofar as it is not disputed, the online verification did not lead to confirmation, the genuineness of the documents relied by the applicants cannot be accepted at this stage. The genuineness of the document may remain to be examined at the trial, at the appropriate stage. 7. Accordingly, the application is disposed of with a direction, in case, the applicants appear before the learned court below through counsel within two weeks from today, the learned court below may make its own consideration, if the summoning order dated 06.04.2021 requires rectification. It may then pass an appropriate order and proceed in accordance with law. 8. Also, if required to be summoned (at that stage), the applicants may appear before the learned court within 30 days of that order. Keeping in mind the fact of the offence alleged being punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment and in view of the other facts noted above, in that event no coercive measures may be adopted against the applicants for 30 days and their prayer for bail may be considered expeditiously as prima facie it does appear that the applicants' case would fall under Category-A of cases under Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 . For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure may be adopted against the applicants. 9. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.