Allahabad High Court
Raghuvir Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124003 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (Sl.No. 3011) Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2753 of 2019 Applicant :- Raghuvir Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Saran,Gaurav Khare,Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Rashtrapati Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 20.03.2018 under Sections 420, 290 I.P.C. and Section 14 of the Sarai Act, 1867 arising out of FIR dated 13.01.2018 registered as Crime No. 0020 of 2018, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District Meerut pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as Case No. 16190 of 2018.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that from the plain reading of the entire FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses which are the part of case diary and the charge sheet, no offence whatsoever can be said to have been made out against the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has relied upon Section 268, 292, 420 and 415 IPC and Section 14 of the Sarai Act, 1867 which are reproduced herein as under:
"268. Public nuisance.-A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.
292. Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.-- (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
(2) Whoever-
(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicity exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or
(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or
(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are, for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or
(d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or
(e) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
Exception.--This section does not extend to-
(a) any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure--
(i) the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern, or
(ii) which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes;
(b) any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in--
(i) any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958), or
(ii) any temple, or on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose.
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.?A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
Illustrations
(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.
(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.
(e) A, by pledging as diamond articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
(f) A Intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.
(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.
(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.
(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.
THE SARS ACT, 1867
14. Penalty for infringing Act or regulations.?If the keeper of a Sar offend against any of the provisions of this Act or any of the regulations made in pursuance of this Act, he shall for every such offence be liable on conviction before any Magistrate to a penalty not exceeding twenty rupees, and to a further penalty not exceeding one Rupee a day for every day during which the offence continues:
Provided always, that this Act shall not exempt any person from any penalty or other liability to which he may be subject irrespective of this Act. All penalties imposed under this Act may be recovered in the same manner as fines may be recovered under 1Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
4. In the FIR, it has been alleged that on 12.01.2018 police team led by opposite party no. 2 on secret information raided the premises namely "Hotel Sher-e-Punjab" owned by the applicant herein and allegedly 10 Aadhar Cards and 5 Voter IDs were recovered from the possession of the applicant herein. The visitors' register was also checked and it was found that the entries were incomplete. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery of Aadhar Cards and Voter IDs and noticing that incomplete entries were made in the visitors' register, the instant FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that though in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2 has stated that he has sealed the recovered ID cards in separate clothes; however, it has nowhere been disclosed that the said ID cards belong to which person nor any statement of such persons have been recorded during investigation and only the statement of the police personnel has been recorded. Unless it is shown by the person whose Aadhar Cards or ID cards were recovered and that the said ID cards or Aadhar cards were misused by the applicant, no offence under Section 420 or 268 or 292 can be said to have been made out against the applicant.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant further submits that Section 14 of the Sarai Act, 1867 provides for the penalty and maximum penalty is Rs. 20/- only. Further it is submitted that there is no averment in the FIR or the charge sheet as to which provision of the Sarai Act has been violated which may attract the penalty under Section 14 of the Sarai Act. In view thereof, learned Senior Counsel submits that from the entire material available on record, it cannot be said that any of the offences as alleged against the applicant have been prima facie made out. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Sc 315 and seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. though supports the prosecution case; however, he is not able to show as to how the offences under Section 420, 290 or Section 14 of the Sarai Act is made out as it has nowhere been alleged that which provision of the Sarai Act has been violated by the applicant.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case.
9. From perusal of the FIR and the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet, this Court is of the opinion that none of the offences either under Section 420 or 290 is made out on the basis of allegations leveled against the applicant. Further, it has not been disclosed as to which provision of the Sarai Act is violated attracting Section 14 of the Sarai Act.
10. In view thereof, prima facie it is found that the instant case is nothing but a malicious prosecution and from the perusal of the entire record of the case, none of the offences can be said to be made out against the applicant herein. Accordingly, in view of the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Sc 315, the same deserves to be quashed.
11. For reasons aforesaid, the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No. 16190 of 2018 arising out of FIR dated 13.01.2018 registered as Crime No. 0020 of 2018, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District Meerut is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)