High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Surendra Kumar Garg v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3069 of 2005  RD-AH 1179 (17 January 2006)
Crl. Misc. Application No. 14891 of 2005
Rakesh Kumar Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and another.
Crl. Misc Application No. 3069 of 2005
Surendra Kumar Garg Vs. State of U.P. and another.
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
These two application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arise between same parties and therefore they have been taken together for hearing and are being decided by one order. The application no. 3069 of 2005 has been filed by Surendra Kumar Garg for quashing the complaint case no. 605 (Rakesh Goel Vs. Surendra Kumar Garg), Pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Aligarh under Sections 420, 380, 411 IPC. The Crl Misc. Application No. 14891 of 2005 has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Goel for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 1061 of 2003 (Surendra Kumar Vs. Rakesh Goel) under Section 138 N.I.Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Aligarh, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist Aligarh.
Brief facts are that Rakesh Kumar Goel and Surendra Kumar Garg were partners in partnership firm in the name and Style of Aporva India. However, some dispute arose and partnership was dissolved in March 1993.According to Surendra Kumar Garg after the dissolution of partnership a compromise was entered into between the parties and Rakesh Kumar agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 3,19,641/- and out of which Rs. 50,000/-were paid in cash on 20.5.2003 and for the rest of the amount of Rs. 269941/- a cheque no300605 dated 24.5.1993 was given. This cheque was presented by him in the bank but was dishonoured on 21.7.1993. Thereafter he gave a notice through his counsel on 23.7.1993, which was served on Rakesh Kumar Goyal on 29.7.1993 but he did not make any payment and thereafter Surendra Kumar Garg filed a complaint case on 8.8.1993 in the Court of C.J.M. and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.11.1993 directed to summon Rakesh Kumar Goel under Section 138 N.I.Act.
The case of Rakesh Kumar Goel is that his cheque no. 300605 was stolen by Surendra Kumar and when he was summoned under Section 138 N.I.Act he came to know that the cheque was stolen and thereafter he filed a complaint case against Surendra Kumar Garg under Sections 380, 411, 420 IPC on 15.2.1994. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 28.2.1994 summoned Surendra Kumar Garg under Section 380, 411 and 420 IPC.
According to the contention as made by both the parties they have been falsely implicated in the case by the other party. Contention as made by the parties are factual and can be decided by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence that may be led in the case as the evidence cannot be analysed or scrutinised in detail in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C..
Sri Imranullah, learned counsel for Surendra Kumar Garg has contended that the opposite party Rakesh Kumar has concealed the fact of filing of earlier application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in his application no. 14891 of 2005. This fact has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by Surendra Kumar Garg. But the perusal of the record of Criminal Misc. Application No. 20235 of 1993 shows that that application was filed by Rakesh Kumar Goel against the state of U.P. and Smt. Shikha Garg wife of Surendra Kumar Garg for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint No. 2402 of 1993 under Section 138 N. I. Act and Section 420 IPC pertaining to Cheque No. 300612 for Rs. 55,000/- of Bank of Baroda. In the present application no. 14891 of 2005, the prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings of Complaint case no. 1061 of 2003 (old complaint case no. 2467 of 1993) in respect of Cheque no. 300605 for Rs. 269941. Therefore, two cases are different and parties were also different; Therefore, it cannot be said that Rakesh Kumar Goel has concealed any fact in his present application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that both the applications filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. are devoid of merits and the proceedings in these cases cannot be quashed and these applications are liable to be dismissed.
It appears that two complaint cases are pending in different courts; at present. The interest of justice requires that these two complaint cases are heard and decided by the same court and therefore parties shall move application before the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh for transfer of the two complaint cases in one Court for expeditious disposal according to law.
Applications are hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.