Ravi Batra And 2 Ors vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the allegations made against the applicants clearly disclosed a cognizable offense. The Court observed that the applicants had allegedly advised the complainant to purchase cloth worth Rs. 2 lakh on two occasions and subsequently took Rs. 50,000 from him for GST and registration expenses. This conduct, as narrated in the application, indicated a clear case of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Therefore, the Court found that the summoning order passed by the Magistrate did not suffer from any illegality. The application filed under Section 482 CrPC was accordingly refused. However, the Court granted relief to the applicants by observing that if they surrendered before the court below within 30 days from the date of the order and applied for bail, their bail applications would be considered and decided in view of the settled law. The Court also directed that no coercive action would be taken against the applicants for a period of 30 days.

Facts

The applicants, Ravi Batra and two others, filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash a summoning order dated March 30, 2019. This order was passed in Misc. Case No. 246 of 2018, arising from Case Crime No. 820 of 2018, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The FIR was registered based on an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. Following an investigation, the police submitted a final report. However, the complainant, Rumit Kathuriya (opposite party no. 2), filed a protest petition. The Magistrate, after examining the case diary and the protest petition, rejected the final report and summoned the applicants under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, exercising powers under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC. The allegations involved the applicants advising the complainant to purchase cloth worth Rs. 2 lakh on two occasions, and subsequently taking Rs. 50,000 for GST and registration expenses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summoning order dated March 30, 2019, passed by the Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 246 of 2018, is illegal and suffers from any infirmity, thereby warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC? The applicants argued that the summoning order was illegal and should be quashed. They contended that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offense. The applicants relied on the fact that the police had filed a final report, suggesting a lack of evidence. They sought to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice. The opposite party (State) argued that the allegations clearly disclosed a cognizable offense. They contended that the Magistrate had correctly considered the protest petition and the case diary, and that the summoning order was passed after due application of mind. The State argued that the matter involved cheating and criminal breach of trust, and that the applicants had taken money from the complainant under the guise of GST and registration expenses.