Disposed

Deb Priya Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023A482/14985/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash summoning and non-bailable warrant orders, the High Court declined to adjudicate facts regarding notice pendency. Instead, it granted protection for the applicant to appear and file for bail, stayed the warrant, and directed the trial court to decide the bail application within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to surrender and move bail within two weeks; trial court to decide bail within two weeks thereafter; non-bailable warrant stayed until bail decision.

Deb Priya Das Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155966

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14985 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Deb Priya Das Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajan Upadhyay,Pankaj Tiwari,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the summoning order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Complaint Case No.10845 of 2017 and other consequential order passed in the aforesaid matter.

¶8

Facts culled out from the averments made in the application are that with respect to the business transaction between the parties an complaint dated 03.10.2016 has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2, Mukesh Agrawal under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however, same was rejected vide order dated 07.10.2016. Later on concealing the rejection order dated 07.10.2016, another application dated 20.10.2016 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by the opposite party no.2. Learned Magistrate, vide order dated 14.11.2016, has allowed the same and issued a direction for registering the criminal case against the accused including the present applicant.

¶9

In pursuance of the order dated 14.11.2016, FIR being Case Crime No.0921 of 2016 has been lodged. After due investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted a final report with an averment that previously one complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has already been rejected, vide order dated 7.10.2016. Against the said final report, complainant has filed protest petition.

¶10

Having considered the documents available on record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 8.3.2017, has accepted the final report submitted by the police and further issued direction

¶11

to initiate the proceedings against the complainant under Section 182 IPC. Having been aggrieved against the order dated 8.3.2017, opposite party No.2 has preferred a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.193 of 2017. Revisional Court, vide order dated 21.5.2018, has allowed the revision and relegated the parties before the trial court to pass a fresh order considering the protest petition and the provisions as enunciated under Section 195 Cr.P.C. It appears that after remand order dated 21.5.2018, protest petition has been treated as a complaint and after considering the evidence on record and the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued the process against the present applicant, vide order dated 1.2.2023, under Section 420 IPC. Due to non-appearance, subsequently, non-bailable-warrant has been issued, vide order dated 19.1.2023, which are under challenge before this Court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant never came to know about the pendency of any complaint in pursuance of the remand order dated 21.5.2018, therefore, bona-fide, he could not be appeared before the Court concerned. It is further submitted that neither at the stage of the revision nor at the stage of complaint, after the remand order dated 21.5.2018, any notice has been served upon him. The applicant is a business man and he could not dare to evade the court proceedings in case it comes to his knowledge. One opportunity should be given to the present applicant to appear before the court concerned so that he may put his defence against the offence under which he has been implicated and summons issued. It is further submitted that the process has illegally been issued against the present applicant on the basis of false and malicious prosecution. It is further submitted that, twice, applications moved on behalf of the present applicant have been rejected, therefore, there is no justification to issue a fresh summoning order against the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further urged to consider the bail application of the present applicant in the light of the dictum passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 773.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions as raised by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that disputed question of facts cannot be raised before this Court and the ground as taken in the instant application are not sufficient to quash the summoning order dated 1.2.2020. Learned A.G.A., though, has opposed the instant application on merits, has

¶14

consented that in case present applicant appears before the Court below, he has no objection in granting interim relief to the present applicant while deciding the bail application.

¶15

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record, it reveals that the matter has been reconsidered in pursuance of the remand order dated 21.5.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Aligarh and, thereafter, process has been issued against the present applicant, vide order dated 01.02.2023, under Section 420 IPC. Submission as raised by learned counsel for the applicant that no notice has been received by him, therefore, he could not know the pendency of the proceedings before the court below and bonafide by he could not appear before the court concerned, is matter on record which can more appropriately be considered by the court concerned. So far as the factual aspect of the matter is concerned, it would not befitting for this Court to enter into the merits of the case, which can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by the court concerned after appreciating the evidence to be adduced by the parties concerned.

¶16

As per submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, his client is ready and willing to cooperate with the court and, therefore, he may be provided some protection while appearing and surrendering before the court below.

¶17

In this conspectus, as above, it would be befitting to give protection to the present applicant for appearance before the court below in pursuance of the summoning order dated 01.02.2020 and non-bailable-warrant dated 19.01.2023. As such, the present applicant, in case, surrenders and appears before the court below within a period of two weeks from today and move bail application, learned trial court shall consider and decide the same within a period of two weeks thereafter, in accordance with law, considering the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶18

For a period of four weeks or till the decision on the bail application, whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of the order dated 19.01.2023, issuing non-bailable-warrant shall remain stayed.

¶19

Accordingly, instant application is disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Mini

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deb Priya Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deb Priya Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kripa Shankar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunita Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munish Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manna and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parshuram Yadav Vs State of U. P. Thr. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U. P. and Another