Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87533 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37297 of 2024 Applicant :- Hardesh Varshney @ Hadyesh Varshney Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajneesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash summoning order dated 03.04.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.11320 of 2022 (Piyush Agarwal vs. Hadyesh Varshney) u/s 406 IPC, P.S. Kamla Nagar, District-Agra or to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case during pendency of the application. 3. In the instant matter, O.P. no.2 has filed a complaint against the applicant on 19.09.2022 wherein it is alleged that the applicant as well as O.P. no.2 were doing the trade of cosmetics. Applicant used to supply goods to O.P. no.2 which was sold by him and business between them ran smoothly up to 28.04.2019. O.P. no.2 has also given a cheque of some amount as security deposit to the applicant. Thereafter, as the quality of goods supplied by the applicant were not up to the mark, O.P. no.2 raised the issue and asked his money back. The applicant with intention to grab the security amount refused anything to O.P. No.2, and hence the complaint was filed by O.P. no.2. After adducing evidence, the court below has passed the summoning order on 03.04.2023, which has been assailed by means of the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that O.P. no.2 in his complaint has not given any document about the material allegedly supplied by the applicant and payment detail towards alleged goods. He next submitted that O.P. no.2 has given cheque of ₹41,187/- towards outstanding dues for the goods supplied by the applicant, however, the said cheque was dishonoured for which the applicant has initiated proceeding against O.P. no.2 u/s 138 N.I. Act wherein vide order dated 11.11.2021 has summoned O.P. No.2. He next submitted that the instant proceedings is nothing but a counter blast case by O.P. no.2 to the earlier proceedings lodged by the applicant. He submitted that bare perusal of the complaint does not show that offence u/s 406 IPC is made out against the applicant. He submitted that the entire proceeding initiated by O.P. no.2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5. Per contra, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. submitted that as the material supplied by the applicant was of sub-standard quality, the same was refused by O.P. no.2 and instead of taking back the goods, the applicant had misused the cheque, which was given to him as security amount. He further submitted that the court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order dated 03.04.2023 has been issued after looking into the complaint and after adducing evidences u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not. 10. However, it is open for the applicants to take all its defence in the trial. 11. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad