High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mewa Lal Yadv v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 17236 of 2005  RD-AH 6145 (21 March 2006)
Criminal Misc. Application No. 17236 of 2005
Mewa Lal Yadav Applicants.
State of U.P. and another Opposite Parties.
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
A complaint being complaint case no. 2474 of 2000, under Section 406/420 I.P.C., police station Khuthan, district Jaunpur was filed by Sita Ram, respondent no.2 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Jaunpur with allegation that Bhrigunath son of Parasnath came to the complainant and intimated him that ''Rahat Mutual Benefits Company Limited' situated at 65 Shri Rampur Road, Shahganj, Jaunpur, is taking the deposit, which will be made double within a period of fifteen months. It is stated in the complaint that the present applicant is the Managing Director of the aforesaid Rahat Mutual Benefits Company Limited. The company took the deposit of Rs.25000/-from the complainant but has not returned the same. Money of the complainant was whisked away. On the aforesaid allegations the complaint was filed. The learned Trial Court found a prima facie case against the applicant and summoned him under Section 420/406 I.P.C. vide its order dated 2.12.2003. A revision was filed by the present applicant before Sessions Judge, Jaunpur vide Criminal Revision no. 382 of 2005, Mewa Lal vs. State of U.P. and others, aggrieved by the order of summoning in the aforesaid case. The aforesaid revision was dismissed by the lower revisional court vide its order dated 17.10.2005. The lower revisional court also found prima facie case being made out against the present applicant. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the summoning order and pendency of the criminal case against him that the present criminal miscellaneous application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.17236-05 has been filed before this Court by the present applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer of quashing of the aforesaid complaint case.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that it is wrong to say that the applicant was the Managing Director of the aforesaid company. He has filed an affidavit for that purpose today in Court. Needless to say that disputed questions of fact cannot go into in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only on the basis of an affidavit. At this stage, the allegations of the complaint has to be taken to be correct without any addition or subtraction. Thus, it is to be accepted as correct that the present applicant is the Managing Director of the said company.
It is the law that the complainant has to be taken on its face value and the allegation made therein has to be accepted on its face without addition or subtraction to adjudge as to whether any offence is made out or not? The complain in this case can not be quashed as the offence is made out against the applicant. Complainant must get opportunity to substantiate his allegation that the present applicant is the Managing Director of the aforesaid finance company and that he has been cheated by the said company.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.