Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32440 of 2019
Applicant :- Tarak Dash Mukharjee And 3 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Pandey,Prashant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 today in Court, which has been taken on record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 09.6.2019 as well as the summoning order dated 12.7.2019 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 3, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 480 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 0177 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., P.S.- Bhelupur, District- Varanasi.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
Entire record has been perused.
Submission of counsel for the applicants is that the prosecution has been lodged in order to harass and pressurise the applicants, as the matter is essentially civil in nature and with regard to the said dispute a suit for specific performance has also been filed by the informant. 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.
As per the version of the F.I.R. the husband of the informant namely late Prasidh Narayan Rai intended to purchased House No.B12/120A, B12/121, B12/122, B12/124 and B12/125 having area of 1900 square feet situated at Mohalla-Gauriganj, P.S.-Bhelupura, District-Varanasi. The husband of the informant also intended to purchase House No.B15/71, B15/72, B 15/81, B15/91 having total area of 21815 square feet situated at Mohalla-Faridpur, P.S.-Bhelupur, District-Varanasi. In this regard an agreement to sell was also executed on 14.6.2006 and sale consideration of Rs.19,80,000/- was fixed. Out of said amount a sum of Rs.15 lakh has been paid to the applicants. It has been further stated in the F.I.R. that despite several requests, the applicants have not executed the sale-deed. The applicants have also executed a sale deed in favour of some third party with regard to the property for which the registered agreement was executed in favour of the husband of the informant. 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 summoning order 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 stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Naresh/M. Kumar