Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11753 of 2021
Applicant :- Rakesh Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lal Mani Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant 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 summoning order dated 25.11.2020 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.514 of 2020 (State Vs. Raju and others), arising out of Case Crime No.659 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh) and 3(2)va of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bareilly.
Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 23.12.2019 against the applicant along with two others with the allegations that an amount of Rs.13/-lacs was taken by the applicant for providing job to niece of the informant. The amount was paid by means of cash and cheques which were given to the applicant on 18.12.2017 in front of the other co-accused persons Sarita, Nekshu Lal and Sabir Ali. When job was not provided, the informant asked the applicant to return the money, an amount of Rs.5/-lacs was returned, however, when the request was made to return the rest of the amount, the informant was threatened and abused by using specific caste indicative words. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against applicant as well as other co-accused persons and the applicant has been summoned, therefore the present case has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from statement of witnesses it appears that concocted story has been build up by the informant as he was having some professional grudge with the applicant. He further submits that the transaction shown is of 21.08.2017 whereas the cheque was handed over on 18.12.2017 as detailed in the F.I.R., therefore, the entire story is false. There is no evidence to show that any money was given to the applicant for the purposes as detailed in the F.I.R., therefore, the summoning order is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party submit that there is no illegality in the summoning order as the same has been passed after taking into consideration the statements of witnesses in presence of whom the following money was given and the incident took place. They further submit that there is nothing on record to show that the earlier transaction of August, 2017 relates to the same cheques as given by the informant to the applicant and the other submission made by counsel for the applicant is related to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be seen here.
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.`
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 18.8.2022
Rahul.
