VIJAY KUMAR KHURANA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sermon Rawat, Advocate assisted by Shri Dileep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

(2.) The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the non-bailable warrant dated 02.04.2019 as well as summoning order dated 20.04.2018 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 10180 of 2018 (Smt. Archana Ahuja Vs. M/s A.B.W. Infrastructure Ltd. and others), under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that summoning order passed in the matter is illegal. Role of the applicant assigned in the matter is signatory of the Company / Firm concerned. Offences levelled in the matter against the applicant are not attracted. If the complaint case is taken into consideration then also amount said to have been paid through cheques was paid in the account of the Company concerned. Applicant was not involved in day to day affairs of the company. Referring to the contents of the complaint, it is further submitted that property for which MOU was entered into between the parties situate in Gurgaon (State of Haryana). MOU was also executed at Delhi. No transaction took place within the territorial jurisdiction of court below. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that concerned Magistrate while entertaining the complaint, taking cognizance there-on and passing summoning order did not go through the jurisdictional point, which resulted an illegal order. Mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. have not been followed. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the annexure no. 2 and argued that at the time of offence disclosed in the matter, he was not working in the company concerned arrayed in the complaint but he was working and drawing salary from the Jasum Propcon Projects Pvt. Ltd. company. Deduction was also made by the Income Tax Department as the employee of the aforesaid company. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the law laid down in the case of Birla Corporation Limited: Birla Buildings Limited: Govind Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adventz Investments and Holding Limited and others: Birla Corporation Limited, 2019 Lawsuit (SC) 1202.