Allahabad High Court
Chanda Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 October, 2014
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42254 of 2014
Applicant :- Chanda Devi And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
The instant application has been filed the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of case no. 2007 of 2012 pending against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police station Nebua Naurangia, district Kushinagar pursuant to charge sheet dated 15.12.20111 arising out of case crime no. 12 of 2011 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police station Nebua Naurangia, district Kushinagar.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that opposite party no. 2 had lodged an FIR dated 15.1.2011 against one Jaigovind with the allegation that Jaigovind by changing his name as Amit had obtained passport. The applicants are not mentioned in the FIR. During investigation, the complicity of the applicant came into light, the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants when there is no iota of evidence. Hence the prosecution of the applicants is an abuse of process of law.
The learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that the investigation was done in a fair and impartial manner, therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Court below. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre-trial stage.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel at the bar and after going though the record of the case, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The Court below has rightly taken the cognizance against the applicants. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Court below.
At the stage of issuing process of the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Appex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC (Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. PP Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192 where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments of the learned AGA for the State, cognizance taken by the trial court, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at its inspection.
In the result, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused. The application is accordingly dismissed.
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 their prayer for bail shall be heard and disposed of in view of decision rendered in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP reported in 2005 Cr.LJ, 755 which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP (2009) 4 SCC 437. The applicant no. 1 being a lady may be released on interim bail till her regular bail application is decided by the court below. In case the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, co-ercive action may be taken against them. It is further provided that the applicants are at liberty to raise any objection in their defence at appropriate stage by moving discharge application which shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.10.2014
SKS
