NEERAJ AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-368
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 14,2014

Neeraj Agarwal Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. - (1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 8.7.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1081 of 2008 (Smt. Shail Agarwal v. Neeraj Agarwal) under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Shajahanpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Shahjanpur. Heard Sri Ranjeet Kumar Yadav learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shobhit Saxena learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA. Perused the record.
(2.) IT seems that in the light of the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to undergo mediation proceedings on 1.4.2011. The report of Mediation Centre reveals that the aforesaid attempt could not fructify and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons. The Court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on merits. All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon on behalf of applicant. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
(3.) THE law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. While exercising the inherent jurisdiction, this Court does not deem it proper to have a pretrial before the actual trial begins.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.