Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93549 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40760 of 2024 Applicant :- Vaseem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 18.01.2020 passed by ACJM/AJSCC, Meerut in Complaint Case No.339 of 2019 (Md. Rizwan v. Vaseem), under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 506 IPC, P.S. Bhawanpur, District Meerut. 3. In the instant matter opposite party no.2 filed a complaint on 01.10.2019 alleging that the applicant had suggested opposite party no.2 to make investment in Go Way India Company. Initially, opposite party no.2 denied to do so but on assurance that the applicant will be responsible for his investment, opposite party no.2 invested Rs.9,30,000/- in the said Company, subsequently, the said company has ran away after taking the money of the investors. It is further alleged that the applicant has executed two forged agreements one in the name of opposite no.2 and another in the name of his wife. It is also alleged that when opposite party no.2 went to the house of the applicant, he has threatened him. Hence, opposite party no.2 left with no other alternative but to file the said complaint in which after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summons have been issued against the applicant, which has been assailed by means of the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The only allegation against him is that the money has been invested in the Company on his pursuation. No amount has been transferred in the account of the applicant. He further submits that before investing the amount, parties have entered into an agreement. He submitted that the entire proceeding initiated by O.P. no.2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the allegations levelled in the complaint seems to be correct as the agreement was entered on the basis of forged signatures. Prima facie there is an intention of cheating. 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 has been issued after looking into the complaint and after adducing evidences under Section 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 applicant. 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. A bare perusal perusal of the complaint shows that there was an agreement, which was executed with the forged signatures of the applicant. It is not a case where no prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Apart from it, the allegations of the complaint can only be adjudicated after adducing evidence in the trial. 11. However, it is open for the applicants to take all its defence in the trial. 12. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad