Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16248 of 2021 Applicant :- Mathura Prasad Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Pandey,Ram Bhajan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State.
2. This Application U/S 482 has been filed seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 15.03.2021 of Case No. 321 of 2021, originating from Case Crime No. 1030 of 2017 (State vs. Mathura Prasad Verma), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station-Harraiya, District-Basti, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Basti on several grounds namely, first ground is that earlier respondent no. 2 had made complaint to the Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur, when orders of the said Registrar were stayed by the Coordinate Bench in Writ C No. 60981 of 2016.
3. It is further pointed out that proceedings were drawn by the applicant, in which, Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits had passed order dated 21.01.2017, when again applicant had approached this Court by filing Writ C No. 8604 of 2017 where again operation of the order dated 21.01.2017 was stayed. It is pointed out that thereafter, another Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 25207 of 2017 was filed seeking quashing of the FIR registering Case Crime No. 1030 of 2017 wherein vide order dated 16.11.2017, the Division Bench of this Court observed that till police investigation is completed and report is filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., police personnel shall deal with the matter, in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that twice, it was decided to close the matter, but because of malafides and political clout of respondent no. 2, matter could not be closed and third Investigating Officer decided to file chargesheet.
5. After hearing learned counsel for applicant and going through the record, when he was specifically asked to substantiate his arguments on the aspect of political clout, being enjoyed by respondent no. 2 and malafides, he has drawn attention of this Court to Para-46 of the affidavit, which reads as under:-
"........ 46. That, because of the enmity and jealousy of the respondent no. 2 the applicant has been implicated in the present case."
6. I am not convinced that there are any allegations of malafides or use of political clout in the application. In absence of such grounds, being raised and pleaded on an affidavit, no indulgence can be shown on the grounds of malafide.
7. As far as indulgence of the Writ Court in civil matters is concerned, that has different connotations than the criminal aspect of a matter. Even the Division Bench of this Court did not quash the FIR and only granted protection to the applicant in terms of the provisions contained in Section 41-A Cr.P.C., asking the police authorities to issue notice to the applicant and therefore, both on merits as well as on the plea of malafides, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order, as applicant has failed to bring his case within the four corners of law laid down in case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supl. (1) SCC 335, providing for grounds for quashing of a chargesheet. Thus, application fails and is dismissed.
8. At this stage, Sri Vikrant Pandey prays for liberty to approach the court concerned with a discharge application.
9. Applicant is free to move any application, as is permissible under law, for which, no liberty is needed.
Order Date :- 20.9.2021 Vikram/-