1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Nizamuddin And Another vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|08 April, 2019


Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12996 of 2019
Applicant :- Nizamuddin And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Khurshed Alam 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 no. 01 of 2018, dated 14.5.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1577 of 2019, State vs. Nizamuddin and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 0062 of 2017, u/ss. 419, 420, 468, 504, 352 I.P.C., P.S.- Bhatni, District- Deoria, pending in the Court of J.M., Court No. 11, Deoria.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the matter is essentially of civil in nature and criminal complexion has been deliberately lent to the same. Civil litigations are going on in between the parties and therefore, submission of charge sheet in the matter is bad in the eyes of law. Submission is that in such circumstances, continuation of impugned proceeding against the applicant will result in abuse of court's process. Several 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.
Basic allegation contained in the F.I.R. is that the applicants' who are the Manager and the President of Maqtab Jamia Islamia Kadaria Darul Ulum Hatawa Nakahani, Bhatni, Deoria, had filled up the vacancies pertaining to Members of Committee of Management illegally which were fallen vacant due to death of some of the members. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the applicants had appointed several persons as members and office bearers of the Society/Committee of Management without conducting any meeting and they also forged signatures of the first informant(who was the Vice President of the Society) and others. Allegation is that the applicants had filled up vacancy showing wrong date of death of members and had in fact proposal as well as meeting in this regard was not held, as had been done by the applicants. Apart from other allegations it was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that without conducting any meeting and without any proposal the applicants had forged membership of General Body for the year 2012-13. Further allegation is that the applicants had used their position in order to gain illegally and had misutilized the money of institution. Allegation is that the applicants had committed this illegality in connivance with one Harikesh Bahadur Singh who was the employee of Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits, Gorakhpur and this person had regularly manufactured forged documents. When the first informant and one Abdullah tried to prevent the applicants in their illegal acts they had abused the first informant and had also tried to make assault upon him. During investigation the Investigating Officer had recorded statement of witness Abdullah who had supported the prosecution version and stated that the applicants had committed forgery. Witnesses Guddu Ansari, Akhtar Hussain and Shamshudding in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. had also supported the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 504, 352 I.P.C. and therefore, charge sheet under the aforesaid section filed against them.Learned Magistrate after perusing the documents including the case diary had taken cognizance vide order dated 21.2.2019. 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.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.4.2019/Naresh
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Nizamuddin And Another vs State Of U P And Another


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

08 April, 2019
  • Karuna Nand Bajpayee
  • Khurshed Alam