RAJ KUMAR ADALKHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri V.P.Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri H.C.Mishra,learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding of the Complaint Case No.4206 of 2011 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after taking cognizance and recording the statement under section 200/202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate concerned was required to proceed with the complaint and if prima facie offence was disclosed, then the summon might be issued and if prima facie no offence was disclosed, then the complaint was to be rejected under section 203 Cr.P.C. However, after taking cognizance as complainant case and after inquiry, the Magistrate concerned directed the civil police for investigation of the matter by impugned order dated 15.1.2004. After the complaint is filed either the Magistrate concerned would get the matter enquired or might pass order for investigation by the Police, under section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. but once the inquiry is conducted by recording statement under section 202/200 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate was not empowered to issue direction under section 202(1) Cr.P.C. for investigation hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He further contended that applicant no.1 is owner, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are not working at present and applicant no.5 is working as Additional Chief Manager in I.P.L. Sugar Mill Ltd. Unit Rohan Kalan Muzaffar Nagar. Proceeding has been initiated with malafide intention just to harass and blackmail though applicant have not committed any cheating or forgery.