Allahabad High Court
Smt. Geeta Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16541 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt. Geeta Yadav And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi,Kamlesh Kumar Mishra,Nipun Singh,Rajiv Kumar Mishra,Vivek Chaubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Dubey
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal misc. application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the entire proceeding as well as the impugned charge-sheet dated 14.07.2019 along with the cognizance order dated 05.08.2019 in criminal case no.10811 of 2019 (State vs. Vedpal and ors) arising out of case crime no.187 of 2019, under Section 420, 406, 120B IPC, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Buddh Nagar pending in the court of ACJM III Gautam Buddh Nagar.
The opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR alleging therein that he has paid Rs.40 lacs to the accused named in the FIR on their assurance that applicant will be made a director in the Company and four lacs shares of 10 each will be allotted to him. The accused misappropriated the money. They have neither made the applicants director nor allotted any share. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is further contended that from the allegation of the FIR a dispute of civil nature arises and only civil proceeding can be initiated by the opposite party no.2. Since there was a business transaction between the parties for more than 10 years. No offence is made out against the applicants. The Investigating Officer without properly investigating the case, has submitted the charge sheet and the court below without application of mind has summoned the applicants by passing the cognizance order. Both the applicants are husband and wife and they have been falsely implicated. It is also contended that the Apex Court as well as this Court in various judgments given the view that while summoning the accused proper reason and finding should be given but in the present case, no reasons or finding has been given. It is further contended that the opposite party no.2 has availed the other remedy, he has filed original Suit No.793 of 2018 but the same has been dismissed under order VII Rule 11 of CPC by the competent court. He cannot be permitted to continue the criminal proceeding in this respect.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that there are clear allegations against the applicants that they have committed cheating. The money was paid to applicants on their assurance that opposite party no.2 will be made a director and shares will be allotted to him. This fact has been admitted by the applicants in their rejoinder affidavit. It is also contended that now applicants are alleging before the court that they have paid the amount through cash.
The allegations of the FIR constitute a cognizable offence. After due investigation and credible evidence, charge sheet has been submitted. The learned Magistrate being satisfied with the material on record, has taken cognizance on it. It is settled principle of law that if from a transaction both civil as well as criminal liability arises then both the proceedings can be instituted simultaneously. There may be civil liability also but it cannot absolve the applicants from criminal liability. So the institution and dismissal of civil suit cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings.
It is also settled principle of criminal law that on a police challani report, the order of cognizance/ summoning is not required to be a detailed one. The only requirement is that the Magistrate has to record his satisfaction that from the material available, there is sufficient ground to take cognizance. At the stage of cognizance, only prima-facie case is to be seen as propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that their proceeding is an abuse of the process of law or court. There is no sufficient ground to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly the application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.8.2022
C. MANI
