Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Singh vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 5 March, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7856 of 2019
Applicant :- Sanjay Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 21.1.2019 by the learned C.J.M., Bijnor in Case Crime No. 0891 of 2018, under section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor and the charge-sheet dated 22.11.2018 by the Investigating Officer pending in the court of C.J.M., Bijnor, State Vs. Sanjay and others.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a bank employee. He has no concern with the alleged incident. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant has not taken any money from the O.P. No. 2 Narendra Pal Singh (informant). False story has been concocted by O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 had lodged an FIR on 18.2.2018 as Case Crime No. 0028 of 2018, under section 302 IPC, P.S. Badhapur, District Bijnor against Sudesh, Kamal Verma and Ram Kumar with the allegation that his father who had retired from the department of police had talked with the accused Sudesh, Kamal Verma and Ram Kumar for securing the job in bank and had taken Rs. 10,00,000/-. In that FIR the applicant has not been made an accused and no allegation was made against the applicant, thereafter, the O.P. No. 2 has lodged this false and frivolous FIR on 19.2.2018 making frivolous allegation against the applicant. The applicant has not executed any affidavit on 17.2.2018 and the photo pasted on affidavit dated 17.2.2018 is a selfie photograph. In fact, no offence is made out against the applicant. The I.O. has not conducted the fair investigation. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.
On the other hand; learned A.G.A. argued that the applicant is named in the FIR. In FIR it has been mentioned that the applicant, co-accused Sudesh and Kamal Verma had taken Rs. 5 lacs from the applicant on the pretext to provide service in bank. It has further been mentioned that the applicant and other co-accused have also managed written examination of O.P. No. 2 and also issued a forged joining letter to O.P. No. 2. The I.O. after collecting evidence has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant under section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. At this stage it can not be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. There is no ground to quash the cognizance order as well as charge-sheet of the aforementioned case.
A perusal of the record shows that the FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by O.P. No. 2 Narendra Pal Singh against the applicant and 2 others. The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged on the basis of an application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In FIR it has been mentioned that applicant and other co-accused had taken Rs. 5 lacs from the O.P. No. 2 on the pretext to provide service in bank. It has further been mentioned that applicant and other co-accused have also managed for written examination and issued forged joining letter to O.P. No. 2. One FIR was also lodged by O.P. No. 2 on 18.2.2018 against co-accused Sudesh, Kamal Verma and Ram Kumar in which it has been mentioned that the named accused persons have committed murder of father of O.P. No. 2 due to dispute of alleged money. In statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. the O.P. No. 2 Narendra Pal Singh has also supported the FIR version. The I.O. after collecting evidence has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and on the basis of charge-sheet the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 21.1.2019 as well as charge-sheet dated 22.11.2018 of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.3.2019
Masarrat
