Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokesh Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76814

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37256 of 2024

Applicant :- Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokesh Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Singh Yadav,Shesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad as well as further proceeding of Criminal Case No.1046 of 2024 (State Vs. Lokesh Kumar@ Lokesh Rajpoot) arising out of Case Crime No.341 of 2024, under sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On perusal of F.I.R., no offence under the alleged Sections is made out. Learned court below has passed the cognizance order/summoning order without application of judicial mind. It is next submitted that proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. cannot run jointly in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248, wherein the Apex Court in paragraphs 42 and 43 has held thus:

¶9

"42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate a duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police ? to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind.

¶10

43. It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other."

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that considering the material evidences and allegations against the applicant on record, as on date, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as materials on record against the applicant, the criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be said to be abuse of process of Court. There is no illegality in the impugned summoning order and instant 482 Cr.P.C. application is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, this Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sprangly, only in such an appropriate case, where on the face of record, the criminal proceeding is clear abuse of the process of the Court. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.

¶13

It is also well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegation cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court at this stage. The relief as claimed by the applicant through this application is refused.

¶14

The defence version of the applicant has to be considered by the court concerned at the appropriate stage. The accused/applicant has statutory remedy of moving discharge application before the court concerned at the appropriate stage.

¶15

Considering the material on record, it is directed that, if objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicant through counsel before the court concerned within three weeks, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same expeditiously within a period of two months in accordance with law.

¶16

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Meenu Singh

¶19

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

Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokesh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokesh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases