Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32447 of 2019
Applicant :- Virendra Paswan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap 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 further proceedings of Computer Case No. 15 of 2019, under Section 406 I.P.C., P.S.- Mehdawal, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Sant Kabir Nagar.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the vehicle in question belongs to them and in fact, the first informant had taken the aforesaid vehicle from the applicant no.1 to engage the same for some commercial activities. It has been further submitted that there is no written agreement on record in between the first informant and the applicant no.1 which shows the absence of any agreement in between the two and, therefore, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against the applicants. Further submission is that the applicant no.2 is the father of applicant no.1 and he has also been implicated in the present case just to harass the entire family. 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.
The allegation as contained in the FIR is that the applicant no.1 had entered into an agreement with the first informant and had given his Bolero vehicle to him for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/- along with rider that the ownership of the said vehicle would be effected only after payment of installments of loan. It was agreed between the parties that the first informant would pay the entire loan amount as the said vehicle was earlier purchased by the applicants by taking loan from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company. The allegation is that in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement the first informant had transferred Rs. 1,75,000/- through R.T.G.S. in the account of the applicants on 18.7.2014 and on the said date Rs. 1,00,000/- cash was given by the first informant to applicant no.2 who is the father of applicant no.1. Thereafter the first informant had deposited 28 installments of loan ( total Rs. 4,81,908.00 with the bank. Thereafter he contacted the applicants for getting the ownership of the said vehicle transferred in his favour. The allegation is that now the applicant no.1 refused to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle in favour of the first informant nor was returning money which was paid by the first informant to him as well as to the bank. During the investigation the first informant had reiterated the allegations made in the F.I.R. Witnesses Akhilesh Kumar Deowanshi and Umesh Kumar in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had also stated that in their presence the applicants had showed their willingness to sell the said Bolero vehicle and in lieu Rs. 2,75,000/- was taken by the applicants from opposite party no.2. These witnesses had also stated that after payment of installments of loan by the first informant the vehicle would be transferred in the name of the first informant. The Investigating Officer after conducting fair investigation has submitted charge sheet against the applicants fpr the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Learned Magistrate after perusing the entire material on record has taken cognizance in the matter on 19.6.2019. 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.
The application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Naresh/CPP/-