Allahabad High Court
Jagjeet Singh vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3838 of 2022
Applicant :- Jagjeet Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjay Singh,Avadhesh Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Pandey,Yadavendra Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Dhananjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Yadavendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.07.2021 as well as cognizance order dated 05.08.2021 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and the entire criminal proceeding of Case Crime No.254 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Najirabad, District-Kanpur.
Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged by mother of applicant on 15.11.2017 with the allegations that after death of her husband, the applicant has by playing fraud taken control of the business, being carried out by his father along with the entire property. When the informant/mother, now deceased, tried to object to the aforesaid, she was beaten by the applicant and his wife. The applicant also misused the money, which was sent by means of cheques, by his younger brother for the treatment of his mother.
After investigation, final report was submitted on 24.06.2019, mentioning therein that dispute between the parties is regarding share in the property in question. On 23.09.2019, younger brother of the applicant moved an application before the competent authority, on which further investigation was conducted and after recording the Majid statement of the informant which was in form of an affidavit as well as the statement of the younger brother of applicant, change sheet has been submitted in the year 2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence under the relevant section is made out against the applicant as there is no inducement of property in favour of his younger brother for which he has been held guilty. He further submits that the Majid statement of informant which has been taken in form of affidavit cannot be relied upon as it is not in accordance with Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submits that F.I.R. was lodged by applicant's mother and not by his younger brother, therefore, all the proceedings pursuant to the application moved by the younger brother of the applicant are not justified in the eyes of law, therefore, the charge sheet as well as cognizance/summoning may be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submit that perusal of the F.I.R. goes to show that as per the allegations, offence under the relevant section is made out, even if, the Majid statements is ignored then too all the allegations appear to be correct on bare reading of the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that applicant has availed the remedy of filing writ petition, which has been dismissed and the Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7320 of 2021 has also been rejected on 18.05.2021 filed by applicant and, thereafter, the applicant has approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, challenging the final judgment order dated 15.12.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27787 of 2017, which has not been mentioned in the affidavit, therefore, the application may be dismissed on this ground itself that the facts regarding filing of the aforesaid cases and pendency of the dispute before the Hon'ble Apex Court has been concealed.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be 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. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty,
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
In view of the aforesaid, 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 impugned charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022
Rahul.
