Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28654 of 2019
Applicant :- Virendra Das @ Veeru And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tiwari 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 No.245 of 2016 dated 26.11.2016 as well as the entire proceedings in Case No.2571 of 2017 (State vs. Virendra Das and another) arising out of Case Crime No.992 of 2016, u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.-
Harraiya, District-Basti, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel 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.
According to the version of the F.I.R., Mahant Trilok Narayan Das had executed a will in favour of first informant regarding the property of Ram Janki Mandir on 07.12.1990 and had nominated the first informant to be his successor. As the first informant was a minor at that time the first informant's father was treated as his guardian. Mahant Trilok Narayan Das died on 23.02.1991 and as such being the sole successor the first informant got the possession of the property in the capacity of Sarvarakar and Mahant of the temple. An order by the court dated 14.5.2013 regarding a probate is also there but the accused Virendra Das @ Veeru and his companion Rajesh Tiwari and certain other persons in order to obtain wrongful gain had conspired together and fabricated certain forged papers. It was alleged that Deep Narayan s/o Jagat Narayan had died on 14.7.1997 but forgery in that regard was also committed and forged death certificate was also fabricated. A brazen attempt to declare themselves as legal successors of the temple property was made by the accused persons and they warned to take unlawful possession of the same. On the resistance and protest of the first informant, the threats to face dire consequences were being given by the accused persons. It was also alleged that though the first informant was very much alive but in the death certificate of another person the name of first informant was fraudulently entered as a result of deep conspiracy and by committing fraud a number of documents were forged in order to falsely get himself declared the disciple of late Mahant Trilok Narayan Das.
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.
In view of the aforesaid this application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019
M. Kumar