Allahabad High Court
Vinay Rai & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 11 May, 2017
Bench: Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1378 of 1999
Applicant :- Vinay Rai & Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Awasthi,Manish Tiwari,Rajeev Chadha,V.C.Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Pankaj Dubey
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Case called out. Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State are present. No one present for opposite party no.2.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 10.4.1999 filed in the court of A.C.J.M., Hapur in case crime no.9/98 under sections 420, 406, 417, 468, 469, 467, 471, 120-B, P.S. Kotwali Hapur, District Ghaziabad subsequently registered as criminal case no.662 of 1999 pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Hapur, Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the father of opposite party no.2 filed a complaint with similar allegations of fraud against the applicants, being Director and Chairman of Usha Rectifier Corporation India Ltd. known as Usha India Ltd., claiming that the company had made an advertisement in the newspaper Navbharat Times in 1989, on the basis of which he invested in company by purchasing shares of company, but the company did not establish the plant within time, and though the company earned profit, but proportionate profit could not be conveyed to him; that on such complaint, summoning order was issued by the Magistrate, which was challenged by the applicants before the Sessions Judge by filing criminal revision; that the order of rejection passed by Sessions Judge was challenged by the father of opposite party no.2 before this Court in Criminal Revision No.2440 of 1999, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.3.2000 at S.A.1; that the father of opposite party no.2 further challenged the order of this Court dated 8.3.2000 by filing Special Leave Petition, which too was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 4.8.2000 at Annexure No.S.A.2; that the father of opposite party no.2 did not stop and sent a notice through his wife and also filed writ petition before Delhi High Court, which ordered for C.B.I. enquiry in the matter vide order dated 7.9.2006 at Annexure No.S.A.6; that C.B.I. after investigation found no substance in the complaint and submitted closer report, which was accepted by A.C.M.M. Karkardooma Court, Delhi vide order dated 16.10.2008 at S.A.10; that the father of opposite party no.2 again moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. through his daughter opposite party no.2 with the similar allegations with respect to the shares allotted in her favour in the year 1989; that in the application moved in the year 1998, it was mentioned in the application itself that the opposite party no.2 is aged about 21 years at the time of moving application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which shows that at the time of allotment of shares in her favour in the year 1989, she was below 14 years of age, though she is 1978 born as per her high school certificate and so was only 11 years old at the time of allotment of shares; that since shares were allotted in favour of opposite party no.2 by concealment of fact that she was minor and since no shares could have been allotted in favour of minor, without moving allotment application through guardian, so the applicants cancelled the shares allotted to her and refund the money to opposite party no.2 by issuing a bank draft in her favour on 3.12.1998 for Rs.11,200/-, copy of which is at Annexure No.8 and the same was encashed by opposite party no.2; that since the matter has been decided upto the Apex Court with respect to the fact that no fraud was ever committed by the applicants or their company and merely for the reasons that plant could not be started within time due to several technical and other reasons, it may not be inferred that applicants committed any fraud or any offence of cheating; that in this criminal case, after investigation, final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer finding no substance, but subsequently on the protest, an order of further investigation was made followed by submission of charge sheet without any substance; that in view of the facts and circumstances, it is clear that no offence has been committed by the applicants and their company and the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the father of opposite party no.2 through her daughter, who has lost the battle since 1999 and 2000 upto the Apex Court; that opposite party no.2 has no locus standi to lodge F.I.R. as being minor at that time she was not entitled for allotment of shares and moreover the shares allotted to her have been cancelled and money has been refunded to her; that the prosecution of applicant at the behest of father of opposite party no.2, who along with his wife have been defeated long ago, is nothing but abuse of process of law and there can be no possibility of passing of any conviction order; that by keeping the proceedings of criminal case pending, the applicants will suffer irreparably and ends of justice could be met only by quashing the charge sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case.
Per contra, learned AGA supported the charge sheet and contended that the matter relates to the facts, which may be decided only upon evidence to be adduced during trial.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record as well as the orders passed by the various courts as well as Apex Court in previous litigation by father and mother of opposite party no.2 filed with supplementary affidavit as well as the fact that opposite party no.2 was minor at the relevant time, I find that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by proceeding with the case. The charge sheet and proceedings of criminal case deserved to be quashed.
In view of discussions made above, I find that exercise of inherent powers by this Court is necessary to prevent the abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the charge sheet dated 10.4.1999 filed in the court of A.C.J.M., Hapur in case crime no.9/98 under sections 420, 406, 417, 468, 469, 467, 471, 120-B, P.S. Kotwali Hapur, District Ghaziabad and proceedings of the case subsequently registered as criminal case no.662 of 1999, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Hapur, Ghaziabad are liable to be quashed and are quashed accordingly.
The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order be sent to court below for necessary action, if any.
Order Date :- 11.5.2017
Tamang
