Dismissed

Susheel Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024A482/34270/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order. The court found no occasion to interfere prima facie and noted the complaint of counter-maintainable nature. Liberty was granted to file a bail application invoking the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected; liberty granted to file bail application to be considered expeditiously.

Susheel Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172684

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34270 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Susheel Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party no.1 State.

¶7

In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with.

¶8

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the impugned summoning order dated 14.07.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, (Junior Division)/ Fast Track Court No.1, Farrukhabad whereby learned Judge summoned the applicant for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 506, 504, 323 IPC as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.865 of 2023 (Anwar Mirza versus Susheel Gupta & Ors.), under Sections 406, 420, 506, 504, 323 IPC., Police Station Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint dated 03.06.2023 levelling various allegations against the applicant pertaining to incidence of blackmail said to have taken place in the year 2017. It is submitted that the complaint is a direct result of legal notice issued by the applicant dated 15.05.2023 with regard to cheque bouncing by the opposite party no.2. Notice indicated that proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act would be initiated against him. It is submitted that it is upon receipt of the said notice that the present complaint has been lodged. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶10

has already been recorded of the applicant. It is therefore submitted that the present complaint and the resultant summoning order are as a counter blast to the legal notice issued by the applicant to the opposite party no.2.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant also submits that the complaint clearly indicates that dispute between the parties had occurred in the year 2017 and therefore there was no occasion to have filed complaint in the year 2023 after such a considerable delay.

¶12

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application with the submission that the complaint clearly indicates initiation of proceedings in the year 2017 but the offence indicated is directly related to the date of complaint with the date of incident said to have occurred on 15.05.2023.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that a notice had been issued by the applicant on 15.05.2023 pertaining to Section 138 Negotiable of Instruments Act to the opposite party no.2 whereafter a complaint case has also been said to have been filed under the aforesaid provision. However a perusal of the present complaint as well as the summoning order indicates initiation of proceedings in the year 2017 culminating in the incident said to have occurred on 15.05.2023. The aspect of whether the complaint in itself would be maintainable with such delay or not is a factor to be considered by the trial court as well as the factor of the present complaint being a counter blast to the earlier legal notice issued by the applicant to the opposite party no.2.

¶14

A perusal of impugned order will make it evident that the complaint as well as statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have been considered while issuing summons to the applicant with regard to the sections imputed against him. Prima facie there does not appear to be any erroneous factor in the order impugned which takes

¶15

into consideration the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Therefore at this stage, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned order.

¶17

The application is accordingly rejected .

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for applicant seeks benefits of judgement rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Another (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021) dated 07.10.2021.

¶19

In view of aforesaid submissions, liberty is granted to applicant to file bail application before the court concerned. In case such bail application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶20

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Subodh/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Susheel Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheel Gupta 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

Karishma Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Sameer Chandel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 2 Others

Pno. 102110137 Shailendra Giri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Shiv Sagar and 5 Others vs State of Up and Another

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Alias Yogesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. (P. W. D.) U.P. and 6 Others