Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28651 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt. Poonam Agrawal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra 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 26.03.2019, summoning order dated 03.05.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.908 of 2019 (State vs. Poonam Agrawal and another) arising out of Case Crime No.165 of 2019, u/s 406, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S.-Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.
Shri Ajay Singh, Advocate filed his power today on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.
Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that there is no registered agreement to sell with respect to the property in question. Further submission is that in fact the opposite party no.2 and one Sweta Goyal had taken money from the applicants on different dates for last several years. However, in December 2018 the first informant and said Sweta Goyal had returned back the said money in the account of the applicants through RTGS. Submission is that the money which was transferred to the account of applicants by the first informant and Sweta Goyal was in fact part payment of money taken by them and was not in connection with the sale of the property as claimed in the F.I.R. Certain 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.
The F.I.R. in the present case was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants with the allegations that the opposite party no.2 and her relative Sweta Goyal had given Rs.23,68,000/- through RTGS to the applicants as it was agreed upon between the parties that the applicants will sell out their plot having area 137.1 square yard situated at Nehru Lane, Railway Road, Hapur to the first informant and Sweta Goyal. Further allegation is that as per direction of the applicants the first informant and Sweta Goyal had already purchased requisite stamp papers for registry but despite given specific date as 8.2.2019 for registry of the said plot, the accused persons had refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the opposite party no.2 and Sweta Goyal. During investigation the investigating officer had recorded the statement of the first informant, who had fully supported the prosecution version. She had also handed over a written agreement and the papers related to RTGS to the investigating officer which was made part of the case diary. Another witness Pankaj Goyal who is the husband of the opposite party no.2 interrogated by the investigating officer had also supported the allegations made by the first informant in her F.I.R. This witness had also stated that when he approached the applicants for getting registration in favour of the first informant and Sweta Goyal then the accused-applicants had abused him and also assaulted him. He had already handed over the photocopy of stamp papers which were purchased by the first informant for registry. The investigating officer had recorded the statement of Sweta Goyal and Amit Goyal, who had also fully substantiated the version of F.I.R. The factum of receiving Rs. 23,68,000/- through RTGS by the first informant and Sweta Goyal has not been disputed by the applicants rather the record shows that Rs.11,84,000/- was deposited in the account of the applicant no.1 whereas equal amount was deposited in the bank account of the applicant no.2. 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 406, 323, 504 I.P.C. and therefore, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections has been filed against them. Learned Magistrate after perusing the documents including the case diary had taken cognizance vide order dated 03.5.2019.
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.
In view of aforesaid the application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019
M. Kumar/Naresh