Ruchika Narayan vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Sinha, J.—Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. This application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing entire proceedings of Case No. 2289 of 2009 (M/s. Merino Industries Ltd. Vs. Kamlalaya Hardware Paints and others), u/s 138 N.I. Act, police Station Hapur Kotwali, district Panchsheel Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.

From the perusal of record, it appears that the matter being related to section 138 N.I. Act was referred on 5.7.2012 to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 6.4.2013 is on record, from which it is evident that the mediation between the parties have completed but they have arrived at no agreement, hence the mediation has failed.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and has submitted that the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has passed the said order after having found prima facie case made out against the applicant and cognizable offence is disclosed from the perusal of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant and its witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr. P.C.

In view of the above, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004(57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .

It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.