Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36450 of 2019
Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Asthana And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vindeshwari Prasad,Praveen Kumar Srivastava
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 24.11.2018, the cognizance order dated 1.4.2019 passed by the court below as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 642 of 2019, State versus Sandeep Kumar Asthana and others arising out of Case Crime No. 1230 of 2017, u/ss 419, 420 and 409 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of counsel for the applicants is that the investigation has not been done properly and the charge sheet has been submitted in a cursory manner. 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 first information report has been lodged by opposite party no.2 Ramakant Ram, posted as District Basic Education Officer. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, 19 girls schools are being run under Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalay Scheme. The said scheme receives its finances from the State Government. The funds were being released under the joint signatures of Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and District Basic Education officer. It has been further alleged that for the financial year 2016-2017 under the false signatures of Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and District Basic Education Officer, various amounts were disbursed by the accountant of respective colleges. This matter was reported by various newspapers. The District Magistrate constituted an inquiry committee comprising of various senior officers and on inquiry it has been found that huge amount of government money has been released and disbursed under the false signatures of Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer and District Basic Education Officer. Allegations against the applicants are that they are Accountants of the respective colleges and have deposited the cheques alleged to be with fabricated signatures of Finance and Accounts Officer and have been complicit party in the perpetration of fraud.
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 is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 CPP/-M. Kumar