Allahabad High Court
Lal Bahadur And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2334 of 2023
Applicant :- Lal Bahadur And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri U.P. Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Lal Bahadur and Veer Singh @ Veeru with the prayer to allow this application and quash the impugned charge sheet no. 323 of 2022 dated 23.06.2022 under Sections 193, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar as well as summoning order dated 05.08.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar and all further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9277 of 2022 (State Vs. Lal Bahadur and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 404 of 2021, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings in the said case, during the pendency of the present application.
The facts arising out of the present case are that a First Information Report has been lodged on 07.04.2021 by Arun Kumar Shukla the Inspector S.I.T., Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow against the applicants, Waris Ali (driver), Sanjeev Malik (vehicle owner) and Praveen Kumar stating therein that vide order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2015 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ramayati and others) a S.I.T. was constituted to investigate the motor accident claim petition since the Insurance Companies have suffered huge losses due to suspicious claims and in the course of investigation, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. provided a claim file No. MACP 27/2014, District Bulandshahar (Lal Bahadur Vs. Waris Ali) on which the Director General of Police/Chairman S.I.T., Uttar Pradesh ordered the first informant to look into the same. He then enquired into it and found that Lal Bahadur had filed a claim petition on 21.10.2013 with regards to the death of his mother Smt. Santosh Devi in a car accident in Sector 82, Cut Expressway, Noida stating therein that on 21.10.2013 Dara Singh @ Ankur of Bulandshahar was going with his mother on a motorcycle who took Veer Singh @ Veere with him and were going to Delhi. The motorcycle was being driven by Veer Singh @ Veeru on which Dara Singh @ Ankur was sitting in the middle and Smt. Santosh Devi was sitting at the back. When motorcycle reached the cut at Sector 82 on the Expressway then at about 09:00 am, a car coming from behind in speed hit them and ran way. They fell down with motorcycle after sometimes the police came and took them to the hospital. Dara Singh became unconscious and Smt. Santosh Devi died on the way. A First Information Report was lodged as Case Crime No. 909 of 2013, under Section 279, 337, 304 IPC against unknown vehicle which was being investigated. On 02.01.2014 the Investigating Officer on the information of police informer apprehended the vehicle and its driver Waris Ali. There has been forgery and cheating in the said claim and as such the First Information Report was lodged. The investigation took place after which a charge sheet dated 23.06.2022 was submitted against the applicant and three other accused namely Waris Ali, Sanjeev Malik and Praveen Kumar. The court concerned vide its order dated 05.08.2022 took cognizance upon the charge sheet and summoned the accused persons under the said sections.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that proceedings as initiated against the applicants are totally false and abuse of process of court. It is argued that a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 27/2014 was decided by the concerned Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 15.12.2015 in which the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Waris Ali the driver and Sanjeev Malik the owner of the vehicle were responsible in the matter. It is argued that the vehicle in question bearing Registration No. DL 3CAF 7587 is registered in the name of Sanjeev Malik. The vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 15.12.2015 rejected the claim petition filed by Lal Bahadur and others. It is argued that since the matter was effectively decided by the Tribunal the criminal proceedings are abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the case of Dhruv Nath Tewari and others Vs. Guldesh Kumar : 2012 (1) AICC 366, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriential Insurance Company Ltd. and others : (2018) 5 SCC 656 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager Vs. Lekhraj son of Late Shri Mahipal and others : 2008 (8) ADJ 370, it is argued that the proceedings as such be quashed and the prayers as prayed be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of quashing and argued that the present proceedings are criminal in nature. It is argued that there has been collusion between the accused persons for raising a false motor accident claim. It is argued that the matter is one of the matters of a big scam which had come to the knowledge of the Lucknow Bench of this Court after which the same was directed to be investigated by a Special Investigating Team which has taken over the matter and in pursuance of it, the investigation was done. The First Information Report has been lodged as one of the fake motor accident claim cases. It is argued that the Tribunal has while rejecting the claim of the claimant therein held that the opposite party no.1 who is the driver is involved in many other such matters and is shown as a driver whereas the opposite party no.2 is shown as a owner of the vehicle which is also shown in many other matters. It is argued that in so far as the present case is concerned, there is evidence against the applicants after which charge sheet was filed on which the trial court took cognizance and summoned the applicants. Learned counsel has argued that the order summoning the accused persons dated 05.08.2022 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are involved in the matter. Charge sheet in the present matter was submitted against the applicants after which the trial court took cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial. There is evidence against the applicants. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
This Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter, and is accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
