1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Abdul Hasib vs State Of Up And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019


Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16817 of 2019
Applicant :- Abdul Hasib
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Shri Gajendra Singh and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocates have jointly filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the Court today which is taken on record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 22.12.2018 as well as the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2018, under sections 406, 420, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Chamanganj, District- Kanpur Nagar.
Heard applicant's counsel, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA.
Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the first information report has been lodged with malafide intentions in order to harass the applicant, who is a recognized office bearer. It has been further submitted that the amount as has been alleged in the F.I.R. is not correct and the Educational Authorities have already inquired into the matter. Argument is that there exists sufficient provisions in the Societies Registration Act empowering the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits for inquiry against any such complaint and also for punishing the Society. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicant's counsel but all of them 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 by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
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.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
Charge sheet arises from the First Information Report dated 9.1.2018 lodged as Case Crime No. 14 of 2018, P.S.- Chamanganj, District- Kanpur Nagar under Section 406 I.P.C. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that Muslim Association Kanpur is a registered society under the provisions of Society Registration Act 1860 and is running and managing six educational institutions, out of which one Halim Muslim English School is also being run and is approved by C.B.S.E. It has further been alleged that with regard to the aforesaid school the accused namely Abdul Hasib, Mohd. Shahid and Mohd. Javed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents formed a society in the name of Haleem Muslim English School and got it registered. The informant on coming to know about this forged society a complaint to Deputy Registrar, Firms and Chits, Kanpur Mandal Kanpur was made and on the said complaint of the informant, registration was cancelled on 17.7.2017 as per Section 12 D of the Society Registration Act. With the formation of said society the accused had intentions of grabbing 32,000 square yards of the property of the school. It has also been alleged that the applicant Abdul Hasib opened a bank account in the name of aforesaid forged society where fees and other funds of school were being deposited. After cancellation of registration of said society the amount of Rs. 1,81,00,000/- was lying with the bank account but the applicant has embezzled the same.
The submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A more elaborate discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 shiv
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Abdul Hasib vs State Of Up And Others


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

29 April, 2019
  • Karuna Nand Bajpayee
  • Yogesh Kumar Saxena