Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12452 of 2019
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Zia Uddin Ahmad
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 05.01.2019, cognizance order dated 04.02.2019 and as well as the entire proceedings in Case No.184 of 2019 (State vs. Anil Kumar and another) arising out of Case Crime No.0086 of 2018, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.-Ganjdundwara, District-Kanshiram Nagar/Kasganj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.
List has been revised. Learned counsel for applicants is present along with learned A.G.A. None appears for opposite party no.2 despite repeated calls. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court, this court does not see any justifiable reason to procrastinate the matter and therefore deems it proper to decide the case on the basis of records and taking assistance of learned A.G.A. representing the State.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that in fact, the opposite party no.2 had initiated proceeding just to get them evicted from his house as the applicants are running their firm as tenant of opposite party no.2 in his house. Further submission is that the applicants had never misused any document and in fact, the firm of the applicants was registered at District Kasganj in the year 2009 after bifurcation of District Etah. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicants' 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.
The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are that the firm namely, Jawahar Lal Ramesh Chandra was closed/surrendered in the year 1992 but the applicants by using forged documents got registered the said firm with commercial department, Kasganj. Further allegation is that later on, the said registration of the firm which was obtained fraudulently, was cancelled by the department concerned. Further allegation is that the applicants had fraudulently got electricity connection by using some manufactured documents. During investigation the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C had fully supported the prosecution version. On 17.10.2018 the second statement of the first informant was recorded. Witness Ganga Prasad had also stated that the applicants had got manufactured an affidavit of one Vimla Devi but the said Vimla Devi had died on 01.08.2014. The Investigating Officer after fair and full fledged investigation found material against the applicants and submitted charge sheet against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate after perusing the entire record including the case diary has taken cognizance on 04.02.2019.
The submissions made by the applicants' 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 application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019
M. Kumar