Allahabad High Court
Narendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21237 of 2021
Applicant :- Narendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The matter is pending since 18.10.2021 and a number of occasions, when the case was listed, learned counsel for the applicant was requested to adjourn the case. Today also, learned counsel for the applicant requests to pass over the case.
Heard Mr. Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 04.11.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.221 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.0054 of 2020, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Sahason, District-Etawah, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2/Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR has been lodged against the applicant with the allegation that he has obtained forged B.Ed. degree from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra in the year 2004-05 and based on the same obtained a public employment initially as Assistant Teachers in a Primary School. He further submits that similarly situated persons have been granted relief prior to submission of charge sheet. He further submits that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations as there is nothing on record to show that any forgery has been done by the applicant. He further submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA 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 applicant's 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 charge-sheet dated 04.11.2020 and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are 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 :- 13.9.2022
Jitendra/-
