Dhiraj Agrawal vs State Of U.P.And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5303 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15260 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Dhiraj Agrawal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet no.01 of 2021 dated 01.03.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 10.03.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.352(X) of 2021 (State vs.Radha Raman & another) arising out of Case Crime No.637 of 2017, under sections 120, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. & Section 66C of Information Technology Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

First Information Report is said to be lodged on 30.06.2017 regarding incident dated 27.06.2017. The fact stated in the First Information Report is that one Radha Raman submitted twenty cheques; total comes to Rs.1,57,920/-. For the same amount banker cheque was issued by the State Bank of India, Mathura to the name of District Social Welfare Officer, Mathura and the said cheque was duly stamped and duly signed by District Social Welfare Officer, Mathura and deposit in the account of Radha Raman bearing Account No.14162, which was opened in District Cooperative Bank, Main Branch, Mathura. The aforesaid cheque was endorsed to Branch Manager Gyanchand, clerk & cashier Dhiraj Agrawal (Applicant). For the same amount Radha Raman and applicant held responsible for committing forgery.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant is baseless and without any evidence; applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant earlier filed Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.12815 of 2017 for quashing the First Information Report before this Hon'ble Court. Hon'ble Court by order dated 12.07.2017 stayed the arrest of the applicant till submission of charge-sheet. The investigating officer collected irrelevant evidence and submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and, thereafter, Chief Judicial Magistrate without applying his judicial mind has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant by order dated 10.03.2021. He next argued that from perusal of statement collected during investigation, the allegations are prima-facie made out against Km.Pooja, who is responsible for clearing the banker cheques but no action has been taken against her. He next argued that Gyanchand, manager of the bank has been exonerated from the charge-sheet. The statement of one Ajeet Pal, clerk and cashier in the bank, has not supported the involvement of applicant in any illegalities. He next argued that accused Radha Raman has stated before Investigating Officer that he has withdrawn the amount from cooperative bank and same has been deposited in the bank, so there remains nothing to prosecute. No offence is made out against the applicant.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned charge-sheet and summoning order against the applicant is liable to be quashed.

Per contra, learned A.G.A for the State has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and submitted that from perusal of First Information Report and statement of the witnesses, offence is made out against the applicant. Applicant is directly involved in clearing the cheques and withdrawing the amount. From the statement of P.W.-1, it is evident that the applicant used password and I.D. of his colleague Pooja and cleared twenty cheques. Pooja only on his request gave her password and I.D. to the applicant. Moreover, these are the factual disputes which cannot be adduced at this stage.

After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that from perusal of the First Information Report as well as the statement of the witnesses annexed with this application, prima-facie offence under alleged section is made out against the applicant. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage. Factual submissions and defence as raised in the application can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The applicant has an alternative statutory remedy of moving discharge application at the appropriate stage.

It is also well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.

This Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage.

Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicant in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.

The relief as sought by the applicant through the instant application is hereby refused.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, it is directed that if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court below within four weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

Order Date :- 21.6.2022

SKD