Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25841 of 2019
Applicant :- Satya Narain Maurya And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath 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 30.10.2018 and 8.2.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.339 of 2019 (State Vs. Satya Narain), arising out of Case Crime No. 206 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Jaunpur.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of counsel for applicants is that the applicants were employees of the company namely Prism Industrial Complex Ltd., Branch Office Jessys Chauraha, Jaunpur', having its registered office in Varanasi. In fact due to some dispute several cases were filed in National company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata against the Company as it was the Company who failed to return the amount of investors which includes the first informant also. 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.
Perusal of F.I.R. shows that applicants had persuaded and influenced the opposite party no.2 to deposit some money in a company namely Prism Industrial Complex Ltd., Branch Office Jessys Chauraha, Jaunpur', having its registered office in Varanasi. On the assurance of applicants, the opposite party no.2 deposited Rs.3,60,000/- for which he had to get a maturity amount of Rs.4,20,000/- on 7.6.2017. Opposite party no.2 was having two other accounts also with the said company in which also he had to get a handsome return. Allegation is that when the company did not return back the amounts to the opposite party then he enquired the matter and got information from the office of said Company that the applicants had not deposited entire money which they had taken from opposite party no.2 to the company and had misappropriated the same. It has been further alleged in the F.I.R. that the first informant had given the entire money to the applicants at his shop situated in Kerakat Jaunpur. During investigation the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of several witnesses who had stated that it were the applicants who used to collect money from the first informant-opposite party no.2 from his shop. The first informant in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. had also substantiated his allegations made in the F.I.R. and had stated that the applicants had not deposited his entire instalments/money with the company and had caused a great financial loss to him. It has also been mentioned in the statement of opposite party no.2 that when he demanded his money back from the applicants, the latter had threatened him for dire consequences.
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.
Application lacks merit and therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 P.S.Parihar