- (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 23.3.2015 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Agra in Complaint Case no. 2455 of 2015 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2455 of 2015 under sections 406, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Agra.
(2.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Tiwary & Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that summoning order passed by the court below is illegal. Offence under section 406 IPC is not attracted against the applicant in the matter. Applicant was not present in India at the time of said offence. It was further argued that essential ingredients i.e. entrustment to constitute the offence under section 406 IPC are lacking in the present matter. Applicant is the nanad of Suchita Agarwal (the daughter of the opposite party no.2). There are general allegations against the applicant. In fact, earlier an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed for the same offence, but it was rejected by the court concerned. A criminal revision was also filed, which too was rejected. Complainant approached this Court taking recourse of the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C., but the said application was also dismissed. Present complaint has been filed on the basis of false facts. Applicant has no concern with the said offence. Earlier, she was residing in London. At present also, she is living abroad along with her husband. Allegation against the applicant is that some of the ornaments of daughter of opposite party no.2, who is married to Vijay Kumar son of Suresh Chand, were given to the present applicant by her mother, which were belonging to Suchita Agarwal and present applicant also worn these ornaments in her marriage. But this allegation is not based on any concrete evidence. It has only been levelled with malafide intention to put pressure and to extract money from the applicant. It was further submitted that father of the applicant had already given a huge amount of money in lieu of claim made by Suchita Agarwal, but she is not satisfied and is creating pressure upon the family members of the applicant. It was further submitted that proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case are an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.;