Dismissed

Ravindra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2023A482/5240/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicant's Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking to set aside the trial court's order recalling a previous charge-framing owing to the complainant's absence. The Court upheld the lower order, citing substantial justice, but ordered expedited trial conclusion within six months.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; trial court directed to conclude the case within six months of receiving the certified copy of this order without granting adjournments.

Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5240 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 03.01.2023, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 4521 of 2015, (M.K.U. Vs. Ravindra Kumar Singh), under Sections 420, 408 I.P.C. and Section 43/72-A of I.T. Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

It is the case of the applicant that he is an exemployee of the company of opposite party no.2 and was appointed as Deputy Manager (Sales) as per agreement. A complaint was filed by the company of opposite party no.2 against the applicant before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-VII, Kanpur Nagar which was registered as Complaint Case No. 497 of 2012, under Section 420, 408 I.P.C. and Section 43/72-A of I.T. Act in which after recording the statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the court below has summoned the applicant vide order dated 10.02.2012.

¶8

Further it is the case of the applicant that he was released on interim bail by the Court of A.C.M.M.VII, Kanpur Nagar on 18.02.2012 and he was granted permanent bail on 21.02.2012 by the said court with a direction that he shall file and

¶9

undertaking before the concerned stating therein that he shall not temper with the evidence and shall not make visit abroad without the permission of the court concerned. On 13.03.2012 the passport of the applicant was released by the Court in his favour with a condition that he shall not visit foreign countries without the leave of the Court. In pursuance of the orders dated 18.02.2012 and 21.02.2012 the applicant gave an undertaking before the Court of A.C.M.M.-VII, Kanpur Nagar on 19.03.2012 that as per direction of the Court, he shall not go abroad or leave the country without informing of this Court. Feeling aggrieved by the condition imposed by the court below, the applicant preferred criminal misc. application under Section 439(1)(B) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which was rejected by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, vide order dated 08.06.2012. After that the applicant challenged the aforesaid order dated 08.06.2012 before this Court by means of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5842 of 2013 (Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs. M.K.U. Pvt. Limited) and same was disposed of by this Court with direction upon the trial court expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of the certified copy of that order before the Trial Court without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment. The applicant again approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11673 of 2013 (Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) challenging the order, whereby his discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected by the court below. The said application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. was rejcted by this Court, vide order dated 09.04.2013 with the observation that earlier the applicant has approached this Court for expeditious disposal of the trial and an order dated 21.02.2013 has been

¶10

passed, as such this Court did not find any justification for quashing the order dated 11.03.2012, passed by the Court of A.C.M.M.-VII, Kanpur Nagar.

¶11

Further it is the case of the applicant that perusal of the orders dated 21.02.2013 and 09.04.2013, passed by this Court, it is clear that this Court expedited the trial of the case, when applicant approached this Court for settting aside the condition imposed by the Trial Court. Concealing the orders dated 21.02.2013 and 09.04.2013, passed by this Court, opposite party no.2/respondent company obtained the order dated 08.05.2014 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14737 of 2014, whereby this Court directed that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against respondent company, meaning thereby that this Court, vide its order dated 08.05.2011 did not stay the further proceedings of the case, has only directed that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants (opposite party no.2).

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is highly qualified person and now posted as Manager, Trade and Development in integrated Defence Product Private Limited, Panaki and he has to go abroad from time to time for customer meetings in accordance with his service nature. It is also submitted that the matter is pending since 2012 before the Court below, but till date no evidence or witnesses has been produced by the respondent-company on his behalf, while this Court expedited the trial of the case. On 11.11.2022 after repeated call, when complainant and his witnesses have not been appeared before the Trial Court either himself or by his counsel, nor any adjournment application was moved on his behalf, ultimately, the trial Court closed his opportunity to produce evidence and fixed 22.11.2022 for framing of charge as well as for further proceedings. On 22.11.2022 an application

¶13

for recall the order dated 11.11.2022 has been filed on behalf of the complainant on the ground that he was unable to appear before the Trial Court on 11.11.2022 due to stomach pain. To the said application, applicant has filed his objection on 30.11.2022 praying that recall application of the complainant dated 22.11.2022 be rejected with cost because there is no illegality in the order of the Trial Court dated 11.11.2022. The trial court vide an order dated 03.01.2023 has allowed the recall application of the complainant by imposing nominal cost of Rs. 600/- and the trial court has also recalled the order dated 11.11.2022, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶14

It is also submitted that from perusal of the order sheet of the case, it appears that complaint company does not wish to get the trial of the complaint case concluded and all attempts are being made on the his part to linger on the same, despite the fact that several orders have been passed by this Court for early conclusion of the same. It is further submitted that respondent company only wants to victimize the applicant and restrict him to go abroad because of the conditions imposed by the Trial Court granting bail to him. No charge has been framed till date despite the order of this Court dated 21.02.2013 directing the trial court to conclude the trial of the case within the period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of that order. Initially the Trial Court was rightly and legally closed the opportunity of the complainant to produce evidence in compliance of the order of this Court but the order of the court below dated 03.01.2023 allowing the recall application of the complainant by imposing nominal cost of Rs. 600/-is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is next submitted that the respondent company, who is ex-employer of the applicant has filed the impugned complaint against the applicant making absolutely false and frivolous allegations with the mala fide intention

¶15

only for harassing him after he had resigned from the employment of the complaint company. It is real fact that respondent company for the purpose of victimizing and harassing their employees, who left their services and joined their competitor M/s Integrated Defence Product, filed such false cases against them.

¶16

On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned passed by the court below allowing the recall application of the complainant cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶17

On the other-hand, learned A.G.A. submits the court below has rightly passed the order impugned dated 3rd January, 2023, whereby the application filed by the complainant for recall of the order dated 11th November, 2022 has been allowed by imposing a cost of Rs.600/- upon the complainant. He, therefore, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order framing charge against the applicant. The present application is liable to be rejected.

¶18

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application specifically the order impugned dated 3rd January, 2023.

¶19

This Court finds that the court below while passing the order impugned has not taken any hyper technical view while allowing the recall application of the complainant by imposing cost of Rs. 600/and for interest of substantial justice and for coming to a just and fair conclusion of the trial, the court below has recalled its earlier order dated 11th November, 2022, whereby the court below has closed the opportunity of the complainant to produce the evidence.

¶20

It is settled law that all Courts of law are established for furtherance of interest of

¶21

substantial justice and not to obstruct the same on technicalities. Reference-- Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply; AIR 1969 SC 1267 , wherein it has been held that if substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in a Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities. Reference- Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. vs. Dominion of India & Ors ; (1984) 3 SCC 46 .

¶22

In view of the aforesaid this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by the court below in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶23

However, considering the fact that the complaint case is pending since 2013 and this Court in the year 2014 has already directed the court below to conclude the trial of the said complaint case within six months from the date of that order, this Court disposes of this application by directing the court below to gear up the trial of the aforesaid complaint case and conclude the same positively within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by hearing on day to day basis without granting any adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.2.2023 SK Srivastava

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravindra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kumar Singh 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

M/S Pioneer Industries Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sangeeta Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Moti Gond and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hariram and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another