RAKESH GARG Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.

(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Rakesh Garg against State of U.P. and another, with prayer to quash order dated 28.2.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hawali, District Farrukhabad, in Complaint Case No. 132 of 2013 (old No. 390 of 2008), Mukhtyar Ahmad Taini Vs. Suresh Garg and others), u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Farrukhabad.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is resident of Panipat, State of Haryana. He is under business transaction with complainant- O.P. No. 2, Mukhtar Ahmad Taini. A case u/s 406 I.P.C. was filed before a Court at Etawah. No such occurrence ever occurred nor it is probable that the applicant Rakesh Garg along with his son will come at Farrukhabad and will commit the offence punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. But under false implication this complaint was filed, wherein there is summoning, as above. The applicant came before this court in a proceeding u/s 482 No. 268 of 2009, Suresh Garg and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, and this court vide order dated 01.9.2017 gave an opportunity to the applicant to move discharge application before trial court. A discharge application u/s 245 Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial court with the contention made before this court in above proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as well as in the present proceeding, but the trial court without mentioning any reason and only writing contention of the applicant in its order, dismissed the above discharge application. It was an abuse of process of law. Not even the pin probability of plea of alibi of being in abroad in that period was taken into account by the trial court. Law laid down by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2114 of 2017, arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8279 of 2016, Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin and another Vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nitya Bhaktananda and other, connected with Criminal Appeal No. 2115 of 2017, arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1176 of 2017, State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nitya Bhaktananda, has been pressed by learned counsel for applicant with a contention that no doubt at the time of framing of charge evidence collected by prosecution be taken into consideration, but even if the fact, which is material enough to belie the case of prosecution, is being brought at the time of framing of charge, then that fact also be taken into consideration by the trial court. Hence this application with above prayer.