Allahabad High Court
Baburam And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26660 of 2021
Applicant :- Baburam And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the chargesheet No.430/2020 dated 07.12.2020, cognizance order dated 08.03.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 63 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 303 of 2020 under Section 379 IPC, Police Station-Milak, District-Rampur.
The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 Smt. Akhilesh Kumari against the applicants with the allegations that the half share of the properties belonging to Kailash from Gata Nos. 80, 83, 117 and 646 was purchased by opposite party no.2 along with one Suman by means of execution of a sale deed being executed by Kailash. The aforesaid half share of Kailash was purchased including 2500 Eucalyptus Poplar trees as well as other trees on the aforesaid Gata numbers. The stamp duty of the aforesaid purchase of trees was also paid. In the same property in question, a gift deed was also executed by Kailash in favour of his relative which was found to be forged on some inquiry. An FIR was lodged on 25.05.2014 against the applicants for the false gift deed as executed by the applicants in favour of their relative. An application dated 19.08.2020 was moved by opposite party no.2 for incident dated 11.08.2020 for theft of Eucalyptus Poplar trees from Gata No. 80 which was purchased by opposite party no.2 and another from Kailash, therefore, the present FIR has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a civil litigation is pending between the relative of Kailash namely Niranjan Singh in whose favour a gift deed was executed by Kailash. The matter with respect to cancellation of gift deed filed by Smt. Akhilesh Kumari is still pending and the property in question is in possession of Niranjan Singh, relative of Kailash, therefore, the allegations with respect to theft of popular trees from the property in question cannot be made out against the applicants. He further submits that there is no recovery of the theft property from the applicants; there is no evidence regarding any theft of trees on the property in question. The suit for cancellation of sale deed of Kailash in favour of opposite party no.2 is pending and the same has been filed by Niranjan Singh, the relative of Kailash. The gift was executed on 01.06.2012 and the opposite party no.2 had got a false sale deed forcefully executed by Kailash on 01.06.2012. On the basis of the aforesaid gift deed dated 01.06.2012, the name of Niranjan Singh has been mutated in the revenue records as is evident from page No. 35. In view of the above, the proceedings against the applicants is nothing but a bundle of lies, therefore, continuance of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same are liable be quashed.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that an FIR had already been lodged against the accused persons for forging the gift deed for the same property which was purchased by opposite party no.2. He further submits that from bare perusal of the FIR as well as the statements recorded, offence under relevant sections is made out against the applicants. In support of his case, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.
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 applicants' learned counsel 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
(ix) 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 chargesheet No.430/2020 dated 07.12.2020, cognizance order dated 08.03.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is 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, rejected.
Order Date :- 22.8.2022
Madhurima
