Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16266 of 2021
Applicant :- Shashank Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Keshri,Hemant Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Challenge in this petition is the charge-sheet dated 24.06.2020 and summoning order dated 13.08.2020 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi pending in Criminal Case No. 11317 of 2020, State Vs. Shashank Singh arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Rohaniya District Varanasi with a prayer to quash the same.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant, Shashank Singh has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that co-accused, Rajmani Devi and Vijay Kumar Verma have been granted relief in Application under Section 482 No. 18323 of 2020, Rajmani Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another dated 6.01.2021 by coordinate Bench of this Court, so the same relief be also granted to the applicant.
Applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. There is nothing on record to show that applicant is involved in commission of this offence.
Per-contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the fact that the said offence has been committed or not is a question which could be determined by the trial court and not by this Court. He further stated that applicant went to the O.P. No. 2, Sri Ratnakar Singh to sell some land, hence petition be dismissed.
In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 850, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:
"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare case (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule."
Following other authorities can be cited on the aforesaid point:
R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9.
All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
At this stage learned counsel for the applicant prayed that learned trial court be directed to consider the case of applicant at the time of discharge.
This Application is disposed of with the direction that if applicant appears before learned trial court and application for discharge is moved, the same should be disposed of in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.9.2021
A. Mandhani