Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21971 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt. Amita Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 08.06.2018 as well as the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.1749 of 2018 (State vs. Amit Srivastava and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0485 of 2016, u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.-Dhoomanganj, Prayagraj, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No.8, .
Heard applicant's counsel and learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not the beneficiary in the entire episode and there are general allegations against her. It has been pointed out that the disputed power of attorney was executed by applicant due to misrepresentation of fact by other co-accused persons and she had already filed an application under Section156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 5.6.2017 for lodging of F.I.R. against the co-accused Amit Srivastava and Aneeta Srivastava which ultimately resulted in the registration of F.I.R. dated 07.3.2018 as Case Crime No. 199 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Annexure no.4 to the present application. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicant's counsel 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.
A perusal of the F.I.R. of the present case shows that the co-accused Amit Kumar Srivastava who was the power of attorney holder of his sister Amita Srivastava, had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 on 30.7.2015. Allegation is that the co-accused persons in connivance with each other had got entered the husband of co- accused Smt. Aneeta Srivastava i.e. Sandeep Kumar Srivastava in the said house as tenant. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that the power of attorney itself was a forged document as the said power of attorney was allegedly executed by the co-accused Amit Kumar Srivastava. But in fact it was the applicant who got pasted her photographs in the deed in place of Aneeta Srivastava and had herself forged signatures of Aneeta Srivastava in the said deed. Even at the time of registration of the aforesaid power of attorney before the Deputy Registrar-Ist, Allahabad the applicant represented herself as Aneeta Srivatava and got registered the said power of attorney. During investigation the Investigating Officer recorded statement of the first informant who had fully supported the prosecution version. The Investigating Officer had also recorded statement of some other witnesses including independent witnesses who had also substantiated the allegations made in the F.I.R. and had levelled against the applicant also. The Investigating Officer after conducting full-fledged and fair investigation on the basis of statement of the witnesses as well as on the basis of perusal of other documents, found that the applicant had committed offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and therefore, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections has been filed against them. Learned Magistrate after perusing the documents including the case diary had taken cognizance vide order dated 29.8.2018.
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 threadbare 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.
In view of aforesaid the present application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019
M. Kumar