High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sanjeev Kalra v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 6057 of 2005  RD-AH 17714 (13 October 2006)
Criminal Misc. Application No. 6057 of 2005
Sanjeev Kalra Vs. State of U.P. and another
This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of criminal case no. 450 of 2004, Manjeet Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kalra, pending in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.6, Jhansi .
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 at length.
The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the complainant opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint against the accused applicant Sanjeev Kalra with these allegations that he is Resident of 393/15 Premganj,Sipari Bazar, Jhansi, and the marriage of Smt. Sangeeta Chhabra , sister of the accused had taken place with his son Harmindar Singh Chhabara in year 1999. The accused came to the house of the complainant on 19.9.2002 and said that his mother Smt. Mohini Kalra had suddenly fallen ill and the operation of her appendix was to be performed and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was required for this purpose, and he would return this amount within a period of one month. The complainant after believing him gave this amount vide Bank Draft No. 196232 for Rs. 15,000/- dated 19.9.2002 issued by the State Bank of India , Sipri Bazar,Tandon Road, Jhansi. After lapse of some time the complainant went to Lucknow for seeing ailing mother of the accused and then he came to know that neither she was ill nor her operation had taken place .Then he told the mother of the accused in his presence that the accused had taken Rs. 15,000/- from him on 19.9.2002 for her operation . Then the accused as well as his mother requested for some time and promised to pay back the money to the complainant soon, but he did not receive back the money. Then the complainant sent a notice through Advocate but of no avail. Then he filed the complaint under section 420 and 406 I.P.C.
Learned Magistrate, after taking the evidence of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after perusing other documents and evidence, was of the view that prima facie case under sections 420 I.P.C. against the accused was made , hence he summoned the accused. Aggrieved with that order the accused have filed this application under section 482 Cr. P.C.
The applicant Sanjeev Kalra has alleged in his affidavit in support of the application that at the time of marriage of his sister sufficient dowry was given but the complainant and his family members were not satisfied and after death of Hrmindar Singh ( husband of his sister ) the complainant asked his sister to remarry her Jeth but her sister refused to do so .Then she was tortured by the complainant and his family members .Then he brought his sister back to his house at Lucknow . Actually Harmindar Singh ( brother in law of the accused applicant) who was running a medical shop had loss in his business, so he was in the need of money and on his demand the mother of the accused applicant had given Rs. 30,000/- to Harmindar Singh and this Bank Draft of Rs. 15000/- was given to him as part payment of the amount given to Harmindar Singh .
The complainant filed counter affidavit and thereafter rejoinder affidavit was also filed from the side of the accused applicant.
Having heard heard both the parties at length and after perusal of the record, I find no legal error in the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the accused applicant. The pleas taken by the accused applicant in the affidavit filed in support of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as in the rejoinder affidavit are all factual and they can be taken before the Magistrate where the case is pending. The accused applicant is allowed one month's time to appear before the Magistrate concerned and during this period the execution of non bailable warrant against the accused applicant shall remain stayed so as to enable him to appear before the court concerned. The accused applicant, after putting in appearance before the court, may apply for bail and his bail application shall be decided by the Court expeditiously, if possible on the same day, taking into consideration the directions of this Court in the case of Amrawati Devi Vs. State of U. P. [2004(ACJ) 1846].
With the above observations the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.