Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36164 of 2019
Applicant :- Chandan Gupta And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 18.7.2018 and the cognisance order dated 26.8.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate IInd, Varanasi as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1236 of 2019, State vs. Prem Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 61 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Maduwadeeh, District- Varanasi which are pending in the Court of J.M. IInd, Varanasi.
List revised. Learned counsel for the applicants is present along with learned A.G.A. But none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite repeated calls.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of counsel for the applicants is that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature which has unnecessarily been dragged into the criminal offence. Reliance has been placed on the statement of one Satish Srivastava, Junior Assistant in the office of Sub Registrar and also other employees of the Registrar's office who have affirmed that the certified copy of the sale deed dated 02.02.1967 has been verified by the Investigating Officer from the office of Sub Registrar, Varanasi and the said witness namely Shri Satish Srivastava has affirmed the fact that the certified copy of the sale deed has been issued under his signature. Thus it has been stated by the counsel that no offence as alleged is made out against the applicants. 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 first information report has been lodged by opposite party no.2 namely Munna Lal Sonkar which was registered as Case Crime No.61 of 2018, u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station-Manduadeeh, District Varanasi on 20.02.2018 against the applicants and two other accused persons namely Pappu @ Prem Sonkar and Jai Shankar Prasad Singh @ Rinku Singh. As per the version given in the F.I.R., the ancestral land of opposite party no.2 is situated at Arazi No.357 and 358 at Village Shivdaspur which has been fraudulently purchased by the accused persons through forged registered sale deed executed by one Punwasi, who is not in existence. Further allegation is that the applicants and other accused persons are members of an organized gang who are in connivance with each other and are land grabbers. It has been also alleged that the accused got their names mutated in the revenue record in connivance with the employees of the revenue record, however, on the orders of the higher officials of the revenue department the possession of the said land has been saved by the informant. The accused are continuously demanding extortion money of Rs.50 lacs.
The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded the statement of opposite party no.2 namely Munna Lal Sonkar u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. in which the opposite party no.2 has reiterated the version of the F.I.R. and has also stated that the land in question belongs to Smt. Bhagwanti Devi widow of Nanhak and the revenue record of 1382-1384 Fasli confirms the said fact. It has also been stated by the opposite party no.2 that in the same Khatauni by order dated 23.01.1975, the legal heirs of Smt. Bhagwanti Devi namely Sitaram, Jairam (both sons of Nanhak), Suresh, Ramesh (sons of Kishun), Shiv Kumar, Manik Chandra, Bachcha Ram, Hira Lal, Kalika (sons of late Jawahir) and Smt. Radha Devi widow of Shri Rajaram have been endorsed and recorded. The first informant/opposite party no.2 is the son of late Sitaram. It has been further stated in the statement of the first informant that Smt. Bhagwanti Devi died on 05.01.1973 while Shri Kishun died on 18.12.1964 and also Jawahir died on 16.7.1973. Rajaram, Jawahir, Sitaram, Jairam and Kishun (all sons of late Nanhak) said to have executed a sale deed dated 2nd February, 1967 with regard to the aforesaid land in favour of one Punwasi from whom the applicant and other co-accused alleged to have purchased the said land by means of sale deed dated 07.01.2017. Perusal of the statement further reveals that the person namely Punwasi is a fictitious man in favour of whom a cast certificate was issued on 24.10.2016 (obtained by the first informant under R.T.I. Act) bears a different photograph as has been affixed on the sale deed. There is no person in the name of Punwasi who is residing at Village Shivdaspur and even the said caste certificate as has been issued has subsequently been cancelled by the concerned officers. It has also been stated in the sale deed dated 07.01.2017, the address of the said person namely Punwasi has been given as Gram Srirampur District Hugli, State of West Bengal and presently residing at Village Shivdaspur, P.S.- Manduadeeh, Varanasi. It has also been stated in the statement given u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that along with the registered sale deed a PAN Card of Punwasi has also been annexed and the photograph on the PAN Card is different from the photograph given in the caste certificate. In the PAN Card, the date of birth of Punwasi has been shown to be of 12.05.1955 and thus as per the said date of birth, on 25.01.1967 he was only 12 years old and could not have purchased the said land. Other detailed circumstances have also been given along with the relevant proof and documents to the Investigating officer by the first informant. The Investigating officer has also recorded the statement of Sunil Kumar son of Shri Munna Lal who has also supported the prosecution version.
The Investigating Officer after the investigation submitted the charge sheet before the court below on 18.7.2018 and cognizance has also been taken on the same. As per the opinion of the Investigation Officer it has been said that no person in the name of Punwasi has been found on the address of Village Shivdaspur, Police Station Manduadeeh, Varanasi and also at the address of West Bengal.
Perused the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as well as the documents filed along with the said application.
The statement of the informant is exhaustive, giving the minute details along with the documentary proof, though the documents as stated in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has not been brought on record by the applicants. The said documents as has been detailed in the statement of opposite party no.2 have also not been denied or explained in the present petition. The statements of the witnesses and the circumstances of the case prima facie establish the involvement of the applicants and coupled with the fact that the Investigating Officer, in the charge sheet, has categorically stated that no man exists in the name of Punwasi who is residing in Village Shivdaspur or at the address of West Bengal.
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.
Therefore, the application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Naresh/M. Kumar.