Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35605 of 2019
Applicant :- Deenanath Gupta And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Priya Upadhyay,Chandra Shekhar Singh
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 7.6.2019, the cognizance order dated 5.8.2019 passed by the court below as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1466 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2018, u/ss 419, 420, 506, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Narhi, District Ballia pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of counsel for the applicants is that a housing patta was granted to the applicants by Deputy Collector/Pargana Adhikari by order dated 17.5.1989. Said patta was granted to the applicants in Arazi No.105 which was renumbered as 198-Ga after consolidation proceedings. Further submission is that applicant no.1 had sought information regarding the service period of Deputy Collector/Pargana Adhikari namely Khem Singh Kharak who had granted a patta in favour of applicants and in reply it was answered by the Administrative Officer of Collectorate Ballia that Khem Singh Kharak had worked as Pargana Adhikari, Bareilly from 15th May 1987 to 20th May 1989 and therefore at the time of housing patta which was granted by the said authority in favour of the applicants, said officer was very much working as Pargana Adhikari in Ballia on the date when patta was granted. Looking into the reply given by the Administrative Officer to the applicants it is clear that the applicants had got a lawful patta for the land in dispute. Further submission is that a civil suit is also pending in between the parties for the same cause of action. 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.
Perusal of the record of the present case shows that the opposite party no.2 had lodged F.I.R. against the applicants with the allegations that the applicants had manufactured a forged housing patta for Arazi No.198-Ka which was allegedly granted to them by S.D.M. Bareilly Khem Singh Kharak by order dated 17.5.1989. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the said officer was not posted in District Ballia on that particular date. As per the F.I.R. the first informant sought some information under R.T.I. Act in which it was replied by the Tehsildar Ballia that there was no papers of granting patta in favour of the applicants. During investigation the statements of some of the witnesses namely Lal Bachan Gupta, Ashok Gupta have been recorded who had stated that the land in dispute belongs to opposite arty no.2 but the applicants had forged a housing patta and were trying to get their names mutated in the revenue records. During investigation the statement of concerned Kanungo and Lekhpal were recorded by the Investigating Officer and both of them have stated in unequivocal terms that the earlier Gata No.105 has been renumbered as Gata No.198Ka, Kha. and Ga. They had also stated that there is no paper regarding the alleged patta as claimed by the applicants. They had also stated that if any person claims that he is having a valid housing patta with regard to aforesaid Gata No.105 then the same certainly was fake claim. After collecting credible material which includes the statements of revenue authorities like Lekhpal and Kanungo, the Investigating officer had submitted charge sheet against the applicants for the offences punishable u/s 419, 420, 506, 407, 468, 471 I.P.C. So far as the contrary claims regarding the information sought by the rival parties through R.T.I. Act is concerned, the same can more appropriately be appreciated by the court below during the course of trial.
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.
The application is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 CPP/-M. Kumar