Deepak Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

Deepak Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order refused; however, protective directions issued — no coercive action for 30 days if the applicant appears/surrenders and applies for bail, bail to be considered per Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 297 of 2019 and the summoning order dated 20.7.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No. 5, Bareilly ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

On perusal of the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Submissions at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; only a prima facie case is to be seen at this stage in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical, and the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

Key takeaways

No ground exists to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 297 of 2019 or the summoning order dated 20.7.2019; the prayer for quashing is refused.ratio¶9
Protective direction: if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and applies for bail, his bail prayer shall be considered in view of Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); for 30 days or till disposal of the bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken; failing appearance within that period, coercive action may be taken.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No. 7451 of 2020) by Deepak Agrawal seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 297 of 2019 (Vivek Kumar Vs. Deepak Agrawal and others) under sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kila, District Bareilly, and the summoning order dated 20.7.2019 of A.C.J.M. Court No. 5, Bareilly — REFUSED; application finally disposed of. Held: at the quashing stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in light of R.P. Kapur (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283); disputed questions of fact and the accused's defence cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Directions: applicant to appear/surrender within 30 days; bail to be considered per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive action for 30 days or till disposal of the bail application, whichever is earlier. Single Judge: Bachchoo Lal, J.; Order Date 25.2.2020.

Court No. - 82

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7451 of 2020

Applicant :- Deepak Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 the entire proceeding along with impugned summoning order dated 20.7.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No. 5, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 297 of 2019 (Vivek Kumar Vs. Deepak Agrawal and others) under section 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kila, District Bareilly pending before A.C.J.M. Court No. 5, Bareilly.

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case as well as summoning order dated 20.7.2019, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today

and applies for bail, his 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 Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 25.2.2020 Masarrat