Allahabad High Court
Dwarika Nath Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 December, 2023
Author: Vipin Chandra Dixit
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240432
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1377 of 2023
Revisionist :- Dwarika Nath Dubey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey,Anurag Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kushmondeya Shahi
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Tarun Shahi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by revisionist against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Case No.1427 of 2010 (State Vs. Dwarika Nath), by which the discharge application filed by revisionist was rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the F.I.R. has been lodged by opposite party no.2 on altogether incorrect facts which was registered as Case Crime No.715 of 2007, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 I.P.C. in P.S. Aurai, District Bhadohi. As per allegation of F.I.R. the revisionist who is Manager of Committee of Management, Kashiraj Mahavidyalay Inter College, Aurai, District Bhadohi has embezzled the money with the forged signature of Principal of the institution. The statement of Principal Namely Hari Bahadur Singh was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied the allegation of F.I.R. and has stated that he has signed the cheques and the money has been withdrawn from the bank on different dates with the joint signature of Manager for the purposes to construct three rooms of the institution. The statement of opposite party no.2 Nawal Kishor, the then District Inspector of Schools, Bhadohi was also recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation in which he has stated that he enquired the matter from the Principal Hari Bahadur Singh, who has stated that the money was withdrawn with his signature and has denied that the money has been withdrawn with his forged signature.
It is further submitted that since the Principal has admitted his signature over the cheques by which the money has been withdrawn, the allegation levelled against the Manager regarding forged signature of Principal has become false. The Investigating Officer without conducting fair investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionist. The discharge application filed by the revisionist was rejected by the trial court in a very casual manner without considering the statement of Principal, who has denied the allegation of F.I.R.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submit that the learned trial court after considering the entire evidence and material which are available on record has rightly rejected the discharge application. There is no illegality and irregularity in the order impugned and no interference is required in this case.
Considered the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of opposite party no.2 and Principal of the institution and both the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The Principal of the institution has categorically denied his forged signature rather stated that the money was withdrawn with his signature. The Branch Manager of the bank has also affirmed the signature of the Principal over the cheques. The learned trial court has recorded incorrect finding that the opposite party no.2 has supported the prosecution case. The trial court has committed gross illegality in rejecting the discharge application without considering the statement of opposite party no.2, Principal of the institution and statement of Branch Manager of the concerned bank.
In view of above, the criminal revision is allowed and order dated 16.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Case No.1427 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Aurai, District Bhadohi hereby is set-aside.
The matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to take fresh decision on the discharge application of the revisionist, within a period of two months from today after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting any undue adjournment to the parties.
For the period of two months or till disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023/Kpy
