Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15274 of 2019
Applicant :- Babu Ram Sharma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Shanker Misra 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 the entire proceedings of Case No. 3400 of 2009, State vs. Babu Ram Sharma, under Section 420 I.P.C. including the charge sheet no. 211 of 2009, dated 16.8.2009, arising out of Crime No. 58 of 2008, P.S.- Dadari District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. (III), Gautam Budh Nagar.
Heard applicant's counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present criminal proceedings are nothing but an abuse of process of law as well as misuse of power on behalf of the State Authorities. It has been further submitted that the applicant is still working on the post of Collection Amin in pursuance of the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the District Magistrate his appointment has been regularized by the A.D.M. (F&R), Gautam Buddh Nagar. Several 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.
A perusal of the present application shows that the applicant was appointed as Seasonal Amin but he was not regularized by the administration. It seems that the applicant had filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17198 of 1989 before this Court in which an interim order was passed in favour of the applicant on 20.9.1989. It was directed in the aforesaid interim order that the services of the petitioner (present applicant) as Collection Amin shall not be dispensed with. This writ petition was finally dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.8.1997 after exchange of pleadings as well as after hearing both the parties. Accordingly the said order dated 20.9.1989 was also vacated.
F.I.R. in the present case has been lodged by the Tehsildar on 27.1.2008 on the direction of superior authorities that the High Court had already dismissed the applicant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17198 of 1989 on 5.8.1997 and the stay order granted in favour of the applicant was also vacated. But concealing this fact regarding dismissal of the writ petition, the applicant continued his services and had obtained all advantages/benefits of services for the period for which he was not entitled. The investigating officer had investigated the case and had recorded the statement of witnesses copies of which have not been annexed with this application. On the basis of investigation the Investigating Officer found that a prima facie offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was made out against the applicant and as such charge sheet was submitted against him for the aforesaid offence. Learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance after perusing the entire evidence available on record including the case diary and at present this case is pending in the court of A.C.J.M. (III), Gautam Budh Nagar for framing of charges.
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 applicant 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 :- 26.4.2019 Naresh