Allahabad High Court
Ashish Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23268 of 2022
Applicant :- Ashish Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rupesh Kumar Singh,Gulab Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This applicant, through the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 25.7.2021 arising out of case crime No. 0066 of 2021,under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Jalaun, District Jalaun and cognizance order dated 26.7.2021 taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun including entire proceedings of Crl. Case no. 636 of 2021 (State VS. Ashish Kumar.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that after execution of sale deed and delivery of actual and physical possession and occupation over the land the father of applicant got his name mutated during consolidation operation under section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act vide mutation order dated 6.3.1981. That said order of consolidation officer has not been challenged in any court of law till date and has become final and further argued that after order of mutation the name of father of applicant was recorded in revenue record of the land and he remained in continuous actual and physical possession and occupation over the said land constantly without any hindrance and his name also remained recorded in revenue records. It is next argued that after about 42 years the opposite party Atma Ram was ill advised to manage the revenue authorities and got the name of father of applicant expunged from the revenue records on his misc. application vide order of learned Naib Tahsildar dated 22.7.2016.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed the reliance in the case of Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another Vs. State of U.P. an another arsing outof S.P (Cr. ) No. 3914 of 2018 and also in the case of Harriom and others and State of U.P. and another passed in Crl. Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 11149 of 2020 which are not applicable in the present case.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has placed the reliance in the case of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kunwar Singh in which it is stated that, "Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the 'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. A detailed enquiry into, the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration of a public scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of Cr PC, after investigation."
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as material brought on record, I am of the view that impugned order is based upon relevant consideration and supported by cogent reason, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence, no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
The application lacks merit. It is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
RPD
