Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Mohd. Amir and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 41956 of 2023
Decided On : 08-02-2024
ABUSE OF PROCESS - CRIMINAL LAW - 420, 406, 120B I.P.C. - [467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 406, 385, 193, 195, 196, 203, 211, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C.] - The court quashed the summoning order and entire proceedings arising out of the complaint case under Sections 420, 406, 120B I.P.C. The court found that the proceedings were initiated as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicants against the opposite party. The court also noted that no specific role was attributed to one of the applicants, and the proceedings were brought after three years of initiation of similar proceedings. The court relied on various judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the need for inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when the accused resides beyond the local jurisdiction of the court concerned.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant took a loan and gave cheques as security. The accused misused the cheques, and a false F.I.R. was lodged against the complainant. The accused filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant. The complainant then filed a complaint against the accused under Sections 420, 406, 120B I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings were initiated as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicants against the opposite party. The court also noted that no specific role was attributed to one of the applicants, and the proceedings were brought after three years of initiation of similar proceedings.
Issues: Abuse of process of law, lack of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., residence of accused beyond local jurisdiction of the court concerned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when the accused resides beyond the local jurisdiction of the court concerned. The court also relied on various judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the need for inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when the accused resides beyond the local jurisdiction of the court concerned.
Final Decision: The court quashed the summoning order and entire proceedings arising out of the complaint case under Sections 420, 406, 120B I.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and AGA for the State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 27.01.2023 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division.)/F.T.C. Meerut in Complaint Case No. 1023 of 2022 (Neeraj Tyagi vs. Mukesh Giri) under Sections 420, 406, 120B I.P.C. and order dated 30.09.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 162/2023 (Mohd. Amir and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) along with the entire consequential proceedings arising out of the complaint case.
4. Opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint against Mukesh Kumar Giri, Vijendra Singh and present applicant under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 406, 385, 193, 195, 196, 203, 211, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and P.S. Pallavpuram, District Meerut. After taking primary evidence, the learned Trial Court summoned the present applicant to face trial under Section 406, 420, 120B I.P.C. vide order dated 27.01.2023.
5. The brief facts of the complaint are summarised as under:
(b) The complainant received a notice on 01.02.2016 by which he was informed that he had taken an amount of Rs. 70 lakhs from opposite party no. 2, Mukesh Kumar Giri. When the opposite party no. 2, Mukesh Kumar Giri made a demand he provided him two cheques bearing no. 018149 and 018050 for Rs. 35 lakhs each which had been returned by the bank. He was shocked to receive a notice and to read its contents. Mukesh Kumar Giri had committed breach of trust. He on the premise to deceive the complainant, misused the cheque which was given to him in the year 2011 by the complainant. The complainant was intending to take appropriate action against opposite party no. 2, Mukesh Kumar Giri but he came to know that a false F.I.R. pertaining to case crime no. 314 of 2016 under Section 307, 406 I.P.C. in police station New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar has been lodged against him. After investigation the police submitted final report in the matter. When the record of final report was examined, he came to know that opposite party no. 2, Mukesh Kumar Giri had misused the four cheques given by the complainant. One cheque was given to present applicant-Mohd. Aamir who made entry of Rs. 40 lakhs and presented it to the bank. This cheque was dishonored since it was not issued by the complainant.
(c) On 25.09.2016, Mukesh Kumar Giri came to the complainant and stated that he hatched a conspiracy to usurp a huge amount from the complainant. He had provided one cheque to the applicant out of the four cheques given by complainant.
6. Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 21.03.2016, applicant no. 1 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against opposite party no. 2, Neeraj Tyagi. The Court concerned after taking primary evidence summoned him to face trial under Section 138 of N.I. Act which is pending. During the pendency of these proceedings, opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants. After the investigation and taking material evidence by the Investigating Officer, a final report was submitted.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that a protest petition was moved by opposite party no. 2. The concerned Court rejected the final report and registered the protest petition as complaint case. On 27.01.2023, after taking primary evidence on behalf of opposite party no. 2, the applicants were summoned to face trial under Section 420, 406, 120B I.P.C. vide order dated 27.01.2023. The applicants preferred a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judg
The amendment to Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry before issuing summons against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction, to prevent false complaints....
The inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, and summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter requiring the applica....
The mandatory requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. before issuing a summoning order, especially when the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magis....
The court cannot inquire into the reliability of the allegations in summary proceedings and no further inquiry is necessary if the summoning order demonstrates prima facie findings.
An inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC is mandatory before issuing summons to an accused residing outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction in cases under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. The Court can quash the F.I.R. if the allegations do not constitute an offence o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
