Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16040 of 2019
Applicant :- Jitendra Bhati And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal 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 24.04.2018 and summoning order dated 19.12.2018 in Case Crime No.442 of 2017, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.-
Nauchandi, District-Meerut, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Meerut.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the F.I.R. in the present case is merely a pressure tactics to evict the applicants from the house. Further submission is that the first informant became owner of the said plot after valid electricity connection was tendered to the applicants by the Electricity Department. Submissions is that the first informant having a proper remedy to file a suit to evict him from the house and in any case the criminal forum cannot be used for the said purposes. All 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 to the effect that the wife of the opposite party no. 2 is the owner of House No.726/3, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut and the applicants were residing in the said house illegally. Further allegation is that while taking electricity connection in her name the applicant no. 2 had used forged documents. In the documents which includes notarial affidavits contained forged signatures of the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 alleged that he had never signed any documents nor had stood as witness in any indemnity bond nor had executed any indemnity bond in notarial affidavits at any point of time. It has been further alleged that on the basis of forged signatures of the opposite party no. 2, the applicants had procured electricity connection in their names. Some other irregularities committed by the applicants and the other co-accused have also been mentioned in the F.I.R. During investigation the Investigating Officer had recorded statement of the first informant who had fully supported the prosecution version. 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 offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and therefore, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections has been filed against them. A perusal of charge sheet shows that there was some information of handwriting expert regarding signatures made on the aforesaid documents but it seems that the counsel for the applicant had deliberately not filed the aforesaid opinion/statement of the handwriting expert. Learned Magistrate after perusing the documents including the case diary had taken cognizance vide order dated 19.12.2018.
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.
In view of the aforesaid, present application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019
M. Kumar