LALIT AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T. Islam for the applicant, Sri Ajeet Srivastava for the opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) By the present application, the applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad in Case No. 1140 of 2011 by which the application dated 15.03.2012, filed by the applicant, under Section 240/259 Cr.P.C., has been rejected. The applicant has further prayed for a direction to the court below to frame charges against the opposite party No.2 under Sections 406, 408, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 I.P.C. as also to proceed with the said case as a warrant's case.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the applicant lodged a first information report against Pramod Goyal and others at P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad, which was registered as Case Crime No. 188 of 2011, under Sections 408, 420, 465, 468, 470, 471 and 419 I.P.C. The police, thereafter, investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet only against Pramod Goyal under Section 465 I.P.C. As section 465 I.P.C. is punishable with a sentence of up to two years, the matter was being tried as a summons case. After recording the statement of the informant, Lalit Agarwal, who is the applicant before this Court, filed an application before the Magistrate concerned to frame charges under Sections 406, 408, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C., by placing reliance on the provisions of section 240 and 259 Cr.P.C. The said application has been rejected by the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.3, Ghaziabad by the impugned order dated 11.01.2013 on ground that the power under Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available only in a case which is being tried as a warrant case and not to a case which is being tried as a summons case. The court below further observed that since in the application the applicant did not mention sufficient reason for converting the summons case into a warrant case, the case was not liable to be converted into a warrant case.