Dismissed

Jitendra Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024A482/10738/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an impugned summoning order under Sections 406, 504, and 506 IPC. The Court held that the applicant's grounds relied on questions of fact to be determined by the trial court, thus declining to intervene at the pre-trial stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the summoning order dated 18.04.2024 and proceedings therefrom is refused.

Jitendra Nigam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78813

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10738 of 2024 Applicant :- Jitendra Nigam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad,Kuldeep Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

1. Shri Prateek Shrivastava, Advocate has filed Power on behalf of opposite party no.2 and the same is taken on record.

¶6

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and Shri Prateek Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶7

3. This application has been filed to assail the order dated 18.04.2022, whereby the applicant has come to be summoned under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC in Criminal Misc. Case No.1268 of 2019 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.30, Lucknow vide impugned summoning order dated 18.04.2022.

¶8

4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is a false case filed against the applicant by the opposite party no.2, who was an ex-employee of the applicant. His further submission is that amount mentioned in the complaint was never transacted for the purpose for which it was stated in the complaint.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 18.04.2024 is not in conformity with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned summoning order has failed to appreciate the fact

¶10

that the complainant's version of the incident, as stated in the complaint, is not substantiated by the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶11

6. Thus, even prima facie no offence is disclosed against the applicant and despite this fact he has been summoned to face the trial, which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶12

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have submitted that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial. At this initial stage, the fact of innocence of the applicant can also not be determined as no substantial progress has been made in Criminal Misc. Case No.1268 of 2019 so far. Therefore, the present proceeding at the behest of the present applicant is itself an instance of abuse of process of the Court.

¶13

8. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have submitted that the order dated 18.04.2024 is reversible, despite availability of seeking remedy of filing revision of the aforesaid order, in order to circumvent the aforesaid remedy, the applicant has approached this Court invoking inherent power of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

9. Having heard learned A.G.A. and upon perusal of the records including the impugned summoning order dated 18.04.2024, this Court is of the considered view that the grounds which have been taken to quash the impugned summoning order dated 18.04.2024 call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and

¶15

while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. Accordingly, prayer of quashing the impugned summoning order dated 18.04.2024 and proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby refused.

¶16

10. However, it is needless to mention that in case the applicant apply for bail within a period of four weeks from today, the learned trial Court concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/2021 and Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 by keeping the process, if any, which is found to be issued against the present applicant in abeyance for the aforesaid period only.

¶17

11. In view of the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶18

12. It is made clear that in case, the applicant fails to appear before the authority concerned within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted herein above shall automatically stand vacated without any further reference to this Court and the process, which has already been issued against the applicant, shall be given effect to in accordance with law.

¶19

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 27.11.2024 Arnima

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deependra Kumar Singh @ Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sewak Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

Jitendra Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Tarannum and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Noori Vs Additional Court No. 5 Lko. District Lko. and Another