Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10053 of 2021
Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Chaudhary And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Kant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3552 of 2020 (State vs. Anand Kumar and Others), arising out of chargesheet dated 15.06.2020 in Case Crime No. 194 of 2018 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ballia, on which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia has taken cognizance on 22.12.2020.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that as per the narration of the FIR, allegation on the present petitioners is that they prepared forged files and thereafter, put forged signatures of the Presiding Officer and passed orders. It is submitted that those files are available on record, the Deputy Director of Chakbandi, vide order dated 12.10.2018, has accepted the revisions, filed by Narendra Kumar, who is one of the accused and thereafter, writ petition, which is filed by one Laxman Rai, challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, is pending as Writ B Nos. 412 of 2019 and 483 of 2019. No interim protection is granted in the said case. It is submitted that appeals filed by the State have been dismissed and the revision is allowed. It is submitted that if any documents were forged during the court proceedings, then the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. will be attracted and no FIR could have been directly lodged against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that during investigation, statements of the concerned revenue officials have not been recorded and therefore, this is a good case for quashing, as there is no material on record to proceed against the petitioners. He further submits that his case will be covered by sub-para (7) of Para 102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supl. (1) SCC 335.
5. Learned AGA for the State, in his turn, submits that allegation on the petitioner is of preparing forged and fabricated files and thereafter, putting forged signatures of the Presiding Officer. These documents were not produced during the court proceedings of the concerned revenue court, therefore, provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. will not be attracted. It is further submitted that the trial court is authorized to direct for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and even otherwise at the stage of taking cognizance, evidence is not required to be sifted. It is further submitted that parameters for quashing of chargesheet have been laid down in case of Bhajan Lal and Others (supra), and so also in case of International Advanced Research Centre For Powder Matallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technic Private Limited and another, (2016) 1 SCC 348. Therefore, there is no ground for either quashing of the chargesheet or of the cognizance order.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, as far as chargesheet is concerned, none of the grounds is enumerated in sub-para (7) of Para 102 in case of Bhajan Lal and Others (supra), are made out for quashing. Sub-para (7) of Para 102 in case of Bhajan Lal and Others (supra) reads as under:-
"............ (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
7. As far as collection of evidence is concerned, court concerned can always order for further investigation in the matter, if it finds that further investigation is required in the matter, therefore, this plea of non-recording of statements at this stage, is not made out. As far as civil proceedings are concerned, they operate in a different arena and no adverse interference can be drawn, in relation to criminal proceedings. Even the cognizance order is concerned, at the time of taking cognizance, court concerned is only required to see availability of a prima facie case and is not required to sift the evidence, so to ensure that the persons against whom cognizance is taken, are necessarily convicted. Therefore, when all these aspects are taken into consideration, then this petition is devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Vikram/-