Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10296 of 2018 Applicant :- Akanksha Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 113 of 2015 (State Vs. Akanksha Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2014, under Sections- 406, 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Sarnath, District- Varanasi in pursuance of the supplementary police report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. dated 06.10.2017, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 7, Varanasi.
At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned AGA that this is the second application filed by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while the earlier application had been decided by order dated 22.05.2017, subsequent thereto a further investigation had been carried out with the permission of the learned Magistrate vide order dated 03.07.2017.
It is then submitted that upon further investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a report whereby he has in effectively found the applicant innocent.
Learned AGA on the other hand submits that while this Court had considered all the objections raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and had thereafter dismissed her earlier application, the applicant had challenged that order by filing Special Leave Petition No. 5137 of 2017. It was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 24.07.2017.
It is then seen that this Court had vide its order dated 22.05.2017 granted the applicant six weeks' time to surrender or apply for bail. The said indulgence granted by this Court was also not availed by the applicant.
Perusal of the report being presently relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant merely records the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and it does not appear that at present, there is any material available to doubt the existence of facts noticed by this Court in the order dated 22.05.2017, insofar as it has been observed as below:
"The O.P. No.2 lodged the above FIR against the applicant and co- accused Rajeev Singh Chandel, alleging that while she was in employment in Canada, she had invested around US $ 303,299 in a company styled as "Regan Polard", dealing in the business of diamonds; said investmentS had matured to US $ 762,300; the applicant in order to carry out the transactional modalities, appointed Co-accused Rajeev Singh Chandel, a Canadian national, as her authorized agent, but as the company ran into loss, co-accused Rajeev Singh Chandel without permission and knowledge of the informant, opened an account in his own name and obtained the amount due to the informant from the company in his account to the tune of US $ 1,253,222.85 [(Account No.00414001301) DDA (00414), R.B.C.C Bank, Toronto, Canada and got the same encashed; gradually siphoned it off to his I.C.I.C.I. Bank of Noida (Account No.003101075865); when the informant learnt of the aforesaid fraudulent transaction and siphoning off her amount by Chandel, she initiated proceedings against him before before the Ontario Court of Justice, Canada, wherein the account of Chandel came to be seized, but he with a view to frustrate the order of seizure on 11.10.2012, siphoned off 300000 US $ in his I.C.I.C.I Bank, Noida and in all, US $ 420000, out of which Rs. 1 Crore was fraudulently and as a part of conspiracy, transferred in the I.C.I.C.I account of the applicant at Noida on 10.12.2012 (Account No.03100153000), who later on transferred the same to her I.C.I.C.I Bank at Ghazipur (Account No.090601001148), investing the same in a fixed deposit.
During investigation, the informant reiterated the allegations made in the FIR and also stated that Chandel happens to be her husband and that he along with applicant duped the informant by carrying out the aforesaid fraudulent transactions, to the detriment of the informant and that both the co-accused are now living together as husband and wife. Statement of the father of the informant was also to the same effect. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the applicant and co-accused Chandel on 18.10.2014 under Sections 419/420/406 IPC. The learned Magistrate on 19.1.2015 took cognizance against the applicant for above offences."
Presently, no new or other material has come on record as may warrant any interference in the present application. Merely because the investigating officer has taken a different view of the matter, after submission of the charge sheet, it cannot be urged that the matter requires reconsideration in the present application.
In view of the above, no interference is warranted on behalf of the applicant in the pending criminal case, at this stage.
Accordingly, the present application lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 A. Singh