ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
A482/6647/2007 · 2025-07-13
Prashant Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11006 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11006 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113117 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6647 of 2007 Applicant :- Arun Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuraj Kishore,Akash Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of summoning order dated 15.11.2006 as well as complaint Case No. 2618 of 2006 (M/s Bhagwati Sales Corporation vs. ARun Kumar and others), under Section 420, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Partapur Meerut pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint with the allegation that during business transaction from 14.03.2006 to 28.06.2006 complainant supplied certain goods and articles to the applicants firm, but applicants did not pay the amount. The complaint was registered and after recording the statement under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned magistrate summoned the applicant vide order dated
15.11.2006. the same has been assailed by means of the instant application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that true facts of the applicant has not been considered by the learned Magistrate before issuing the summoning order. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a sheer abuse of the process of the law, as the summoning
order has been passed without considering the fact that applicant had already paid the amount to the opposite party no. 2, therefore, the entire proceedings relating to the complaint case be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that according to the complaint several transaction were made, of which the amount was due, in this regard notice was issued to the applicant but nothing was paid by the applicant, thereafter, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 and on the basis of complaint, the learned Magistrate issued summoning order, therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The summoning order dated 15.11.2006 has been issued after looking into the complaint and after adducing the evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
7. The argument raised by the applicant 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 matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and in the cases of 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 judgements 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 applicant 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 :- 14.7.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad