JUDGMENT Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.
1. The abovenoted applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are being dealt with together because they are interconnected.
2. One Farman, who ran a firm by the name of F.M. Traders in the Town of Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar was murdered on 24.04.2004. Seven persons are being prosecuted for the murder. The uncle of one of the accused Niaz Ahmad lodged an F.I.R. on 06.03.2005 at P.S. Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar that some persons had fraudulently withdrawn money from the accounts of the had fraudulently withdrawn money from the accounts of the deceased Farman after his death. The police started investigation and concluded after investigation that through two cheques an amount of Rs. 41, 31, 025.00 was withdrawn from the account of Farman from the banks by the applicants and the signatures of the deceased were forged and filed charged sheet (Case Crime No. 112 of 2005) under Sections 419, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. against the applicants in the court of Chief Judical Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. I have heard Sri V.M. Zaidi and Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Advocates for the applicants, Sri Gopal Chaturvedi Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramesh Sinha Advocate for opposite-party No. 2 and Sri R.S. Maurya Additional government Advocate for the opposite-party State.
4. The grounds on which the applicants seek termination of proceedings against them, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, are as follows:
(i) that Islamuddin, who lodged the report had no locus standi to lodge the first information report because he has nothing to do with the materials involved.
(ii) That the firm G.M. Traders of applicant Aslam at Ghaziabad had business deal with the firm of the deceased, and he had issued post dated cheques to him, for which he received payments and there was no fraud involved in the matter. He has also filed receipts of goods supplied to the firm of deceased in which connection the firm of the deceased owed money to him.
(iii) That wife Sabira of the deceased has given affidavit to the Senior Superintendent of Police Gautam Budh Nagar to the effect that there was no fraud in connection with payments of. cheques in question, but the Investigating Officer has not examined her under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(iv) That these criminal proceedings are initiated to coerce them into submission for bringing rival party to the compromise, and to suggest that it were they who eliminated Farman for usurping his money.
4. There is no such material on the record, on the basis whereof, it may be said that no case is made out against the accused, and their prosecution, will amount to an abuse of the process of Court. The issues raised are mainly related to the facts and evidence in the case and do not justify any interference by the High Court.
5. Counsel for the applicants argued about the person who lodged the first information report, for having no locus standi, to do the same and pleaded that the case must fall on this ground alone. It may be mentioned with regret that no case law on the point was cited before me, by the counsel, for the applicants. The question of locus standi is, primarily foreign to criminal law. There are charges under Section 467 and 468 I.P.C. for fabrication of documents because the allegation is that, the signatures of the deceased on the cheques were forged, and such offences cannot be considered only personal in nature, and should be deemed to be offences, against society. The plea in this regard must, therefore, fail.
6. All these questions in the given facts and circumstances must have been addressed to the trial court, but, no application for discharge was given to the trial court and without exhausting that remedy the applicants have rushed to the High Court, and want the High Court to appropriate functions of the Magistrate. There is a growing tendency to do that, which, unnecessarily, adds to the dockets of the High Court, and which needs, to be discouraged.
7. The applications are, therefore, without substance and are dismissed.
8. Counsel for the applicants have made on oral request that since the applications are being dismissed, the court maybe directed to decide their bail application the same day. In the backdrop of the case, court concerned is advised to consider the bail application of the accused-applicants the same day on which presented.