Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51838 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39141 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Pal Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshayavar Nath Pandey,Sharad Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.2251/9 of 2019 State Versus Vijay Pal Tyagi including charge sheet dated 13.11.2019 (Arising out of Case Crime No.150 of 2016), Under Section 409,467, 468, 471, 477A, 204 I.P.C., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar as well as quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant was Secretary of a Society, naming, Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Goyala, who has embezzled the money. Inquiry was set up and in enquiry report it is found that applicant has in writing submitted that Clerk Panna Lal has deposited Rs.20 lacs but applicant has not deposited the money in bank. Applicant has lodged FIR against Clerk Shamim Ahmad registered as Case Crime No.329 of 2015. This is second FIR against the applicant. In first FIR, charge sheet was submitted and court has taken cognizance. This second FIR is before the Bar. On perusal of evidence collected by I.O. has not discloses any offence against the applicant. All allegation regarding embezzlement against the applicant is false, baseless and mala fide. I.O. has submitted charge sheet which is not supporting the evidence. Learned Magistrate, without applying his judicial mind, issued summon against the applicant. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned after considering the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality in the order impugned. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:- "14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." 6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another has held that: "To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings." 7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. It is evident that learned Magistrate after considering the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the accused persons. Learned Magistrate has discussed the allegation made in the complaint and statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Summoning order is very well speaking order. Veracity of allegation is question of evidence. While summoning the accused there must be sufficient indication on the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts constituting commission of an offence and the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. so as to proceed against the accused. It is not necessary that summoning order must be a detailed order and the Magistrate can summon the accused after considering the statement. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, 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, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law. 11. For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad