Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16016 of 2019 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sabhajeet Singh,Ram Prasad Yadav 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 No.104 of 2016 dated 10.06.2016 in Case No.1290 of 2016, u/s 406, 420 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No.686 of 2016, P.S.- Chhawani, District-Basti, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, District-Basti.
Heard applicant's counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the F.I.R. in the present case has been lodged with the delay and there is no proof about the money that is said to have been taken. 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.
Allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are that the accused-applicant had demanded Rs.3 lakhs from the first informant for getting him a service of ward boy in the health department. Allegation is that in presence of some witnesses namely Deepu Mishra and Pintoo Singh the first informant had given Rs.2.5/- lakh to the applicant and it was agreed between the parties that rest of the amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- would be given after completion of work. Further allegation is that even after giving Rs.2.5/- lakh to the applicant he did not do anything for his appointment as ward boy and in fact, neither the said job was provided to the opposite party no.2 nor the money was returned to him. During investigation the I.O. had recorded the statement of the first informant who had fully supported the prosecution version. The witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. namely Pintoo Singh and Deepu Mishra had also stated in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that on 30.12.2015 the opposite party no.2 had given rupees 2.5/- lakh to the present applicant for getting his job as a ward boy in the Health Department. 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 applicants had committed offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. and therefore, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections has been submitted against him. Learned Magistrate after perusing the documents including the case diary had taken cognizance vide order dated 27.6.2016. So far as the submission of counsel with regard to delay is concerned, normally when people get cheated they always make attempts to get back the money and continue persuasion and nobody rushes on the spur of moment to lodge the F.I.R. in such matters, and therefore, the argument relating to delay does not carry much weight. Other submission of counsel regarding the proof of taking money is also equally meritless as in such matters nobody gives receipts.
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 application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 M. Kumar