1. Heard Mr.Vivek Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge sheet dated no.196/16 dated 13.11.2016 submitted in Case Crime No. 0451 of 2016 under Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, District-Meerut, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 18.03.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Case No. 3755 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Israr and others) arising out of afore-mentioned case crime number as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned Case, now pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
4. Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. It is then contended that applicants are partners of a Firm known as M/S Arman Advertising and Communication. Applicants are engaged in advertising business, as such no fraud or forgery as alleged in F.I.R. has been committed by applicants. There is no independent witness of recovery as such alleged recovery cannot be relied upon against applicants. Investigation is defective. Same is not free and fair. There is no material on record to support the prosecution of applicants. F.I.R. dated 03.10.2016 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, who is Senior Sub-Inspector, U.P. Police. Present criminal proceedings have been initiated by first informant/opposite party-2 on account of ulterior motive. No person has come forward alleging any loss caused to him on account of acts of applicants. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants thus urged that present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of Court. Consequently, entire proceedings of above mentioned case are liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. Per Contra, learned A.G.A has opposed present application. He submits that after registration of F.I.R. dated 03.10.2016, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of Investigation, Investigation Officer examined first informant and other witnesses, who have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected during course of investigation which is substantially adverse to applicant, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 13.11.2016 against all the named accused, who are 13 in number including present applicants. Perusal of charge sheet goes to show that as many as nine prosecution witnesses have been nominated therein. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that prosecution of applicants is false or there is no evidence to support the prosecution of applicants. Reference has also been made to judgement of Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, A.I.R. 2019 Supreme Court 2499 wherein following has been observed in paragraph 37. For ready reference same is reproduced herein under:
"37. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. [Vide Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another(2012) 11 SCC 465]"
6. It is then contended by learned A.G.A. that charge-sheet is the outcome of investigation. As no deficiency, irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in investigation, consequential charge-sheet cannot be challenged. Consequently, learned A.G.A. submits that applicants are not entitled to any indulgence by this Court.
7. When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
8. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot appraise or appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or other. Aforesaid exercise can be undertaken by court below itself upon conclusion of trial of above mentioned case. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
9. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 YK