Allahabad High Court
Rudra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7527 of 2022
Applicant :- Rudra Pratap Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjai Singh,Rajesh Kumar Sonkar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard Sri Dhananjai Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to the opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 20.08.2022, passed in discharge application and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2957 of 2020, arising out of Crime No.933 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.16, Sultanpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report came to be lodged by the first informant, Shailendra Pratap Singh against the applicant registered as F.I.R. No.0933 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur stating therein that the first informant is the registered owner of vehicle i.e. Bullet bearing No.UP44AS3040 which has been transferred by the applicant in his name by getting a forged I.D. Prepared and after putting the forged signature of the first informant. The matter was investigated and upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the present applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant moved an application seeking discharge which came to be rejected vide order dated 20.08.2022 passed by learned trial Court. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate this material aspect of the matter and wrongly held that there was enough material available on record to frame charge. Even otherwise, no material could be collected during investigation which warrants framing of charge against the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid, it is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order being palpably illegal deserves to be set aside and a direction needs to be issued to learned court below to reconsider the matter afresh.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that in fact the first information report came to be lodged by the first informant/opposite party no.2 bearing no.0933 of 2019 dated 03.09.2019 at 18:05 Hrs. under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur against the present applicant. The applicant is named in the first information report. There are sufficient materials which was collected against the applicant during investigation which necessitated filing of charge sheet against him.
Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that at this stage, according to settled legal position availability of prima facie material warranting framing of charge against the applicant is enough. No roving or meticulous enquiry is either stipulated or warranted at this stage. Therefore, learned trial Court, after appreciating the law correctly, had passed the impugned order wherein no interference by this Court is warranted.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the first information report came to be lodged by the first informant/opposite party no.2 bearing no. 0933 of 2019 dated 03.09.2019 at 18:05 Hrs. under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur against the present applicant. The applicant is named in the first information report. The vehicle i.e. Bullet bearing No.UP44AS3040 which was registered in the name of complainant has been transferred by the applicant in his name on the basis of forged document and after putting the forged signature of the first informant. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant.
At the stage of framing charge, only prima facie case is to be seen, whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. If the court comes to the conclusion that the commission of offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists. At the stage of framing charge, probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into. At this stage, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the accusation which they are bringing against the accused person is bound to be brought home against him. At the stage of framing charge, the Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer is in affirmative, the order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face trial.
To substantiate aforesaid proposition, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744 and Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 1963 may be usefully referred to.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, at this stage, only prima facie availability of material warranting framing of charge against the applicant is enough and no roving enquiry is required to ascertain veracity or otherwise of the prosecution's case.
Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.10.2022
Mahesh
