Advocates:
['ABHINAV GAUR', '', 'ANOOP TRIVEDI Senior Adv', 'G A', '', 'DESH RATAN CHAUDHARY']

Reserved on 17.10.2022

Delivered on 19.10.2022

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33324 of 2019

Applicant :- Arun Duggal

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Desh Ratan Chaudhary

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1.

In the present case criminal proceedings were initiated at the behest of

a borrower, a Company through its Managing Director against the Finance

Company, accused being its Director.

2.

It appears that there is no dispute that borrower (complainant) has

committed default in repayment of loan taken for purchase of more than one

vehicles and in this regard number of arbitrations were conducted wherein

different awards were also passed.

3.

The dispute arose when the cheques deposited by borrower before the

Company were filled and placed before Bank but they were dishonoured. In

this regard the Company has initiated complaint against applicant under

Negotiable Instruments Act. It was alleged in the FIR that said cheques were

given for the purpose of security and without permission of complainant the

employees of Company filled the amount and when it came to the

knowledge of borrower, it was directed to Bank to stop the payment.

4.

Earlier the accused persons have challenged the charge sheet and

summoning order in the present case which was rejected by this Court and

the order was confirmed by Supreme Court also.

5.

Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav

Gaur, learned counsel for applicant, submitted that present proceedings are

arising out of an order passed by Trial Court whereby applicant's discharge

application was rejected and revision thereof was also dismissed. Learned

Senior Advocate submitted that while rejecting discharge application the

2

valuable right of accused persons were not considered in correct perspective

and without any reason the application was rejected.

6.

Learned AGA for State and Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned

counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, have supported the impugned

orders. It was also pointed out that one of the co-accused has challenged

rejection of his discharge application before this Court and Coordinate

Bench has rejected the same. All the submissions were already considered in

earlier round of litigation which has already been rejected, therefore, there is

no argument for the purpose of challenging rejection of discharge

application.

7.

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available

on record.

8.

The scope of consideration of discharge application has recently been

considered and law has been reiterated in Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs.

Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 913 and

after discussing various judgments in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment

Supreme Court held as under:

“29. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is

enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing

of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The

endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is

without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons

in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However,

the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at

the time of framing charge should be the material which is

produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of

such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the

exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the

accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must

be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is

sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an

offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly,

3

apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the

prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Se