Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46501 of 2019 Applicant :- Ved Ratan Chaudhari And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 08.10.2019 filed in Criminal Case No. 2450 of 2019 (State vs. Vedbrat and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0222 of 2019 under sections 419, 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Khetasarai, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. 1st Court NO.12, Jaunpur as well as cognizance order dated 05.11.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. 1st Court No. 12, Jaunpur and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the plot no. 729 area 0.006 hectares was sold through registered sale deed by the applicants in favour of opposite party no. 2 but the some portion of it had fallen in passage because of which the opposite party no. 2 had demanded his money back. The said amount was paid to him in his account, as a proof thereof, credit of Rs.5,00,000/- is said to have been done in the account of opposite party no.2, which is annexed at page-44 of the paper book. It is further argued that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged a false case against him and charge-sheet has been erroneously filed by the Investigating Officer which needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
I have gone through the FIR. It is recorded in it that the applicant had executed a sale deed of the plot in question on 08.12.2017 and when he reached the spot to take possession thereof, it transpired that the said land had already been sold and when the opposite party no. 2 demanded his money back, two cheques were issued in the name of opposite party no. 2 dated 12.10.2018 and 10.02.2019 which got dishonoured and when this was brought to the knowledge of the applicants, another cheque was issued by the accused-applicant no.1 for amount of Rs.6,40,000/- which too got dishourned and till date no amount has been paid back. The defence, which is being set up by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire amount has been paid back, is a subject matter of evidence, which cannot be looked into in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer after having recorded statements of as many as six witnesses.The veracity of the said witnesses cannot be tested in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that cognizable offence is not made out against the accused-applicants.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of 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 and 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. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 AU