Allahabad High Court
Smt. Mansha Devi And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162495
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23849 of 2018
Applicant :- Smt. Mansha Devi And Anr
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar,Vineet Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants (Smt. Mansha Devi and Om Prakash Panday) to quash the charge-sheet dated 31.05.2018, cognizance order dated 25.06.2018 and proceedings of Case No. 3667 of 2018 (State Vs. Smt. Mansha Devi and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 282 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 406, 506, 382 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
3. As per prosecution case in brief, informant/opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report on 27.04.2018 against the applicants, Ashish Pandey and two unknown persons alleging inter alia that applicant no. 1 after taking a sum of Rs. 11.50 lacs executed a sale deed dated 21.07.2015 in favour of wife of opposite party no. 2 but no physical possession of the land was given to her. On making repeated request in this regard by him, the applicants, who are wife and husband respectively, further demanded Rs. 1.30 lacs from him, which was also paid to the applicants. Later on, they came to know that said plot has already been sold by Kalindi Devi-aunt of applicant no.2 to some other person. On 13.04.2018, applicant no. 2 at the point of pistol forcibly obtained his signatures on two blank papers.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations in the F.I.R. are patently incorrect inasmuch as the land sold through the registered sale deed dated 21.06.2015 is a part of a large plot in which Kalyani Devi also had a share and she has nothing to do with the part owned by the applicants, which was sold by registered sale deed dated 21.06.2015. Much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant no.1 transferred a valid title in favour of wife of opposite party no.2 and pursuant to the sale deed, mutation was also done on 03.09.2015 by the Tehsildar. The dispute involved in the present case is purely civil in nature. It is also argued that there were some issues regarding possession of some part of the land that is now under proposal of acquisition for the purpose of construction of a highway. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. No offence is made out against the applicants.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants submitted that upon perusal of F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicants, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. It is also submitted that the process of mutation is summary proceeding and it does no confer title. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2002) 1 SCC 555, they further submit that the criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, this application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its totality, I find that there is no dispute about the fact that sale deed dated 21.07.2015 was executed by applicant no. 1 in favour of wife of opposite party no. 2 but no physical possession of the land in question was given to the vendee. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view 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 well settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that 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, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
7. This Court does not find that this case falls 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 applicants 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.
8. The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
9. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
Shubham
