Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Anish Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194467
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13559 of 2023
Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Mishra,Jagmohan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Jagmohan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Prashant Saxena, the learned AGA appearing for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 22.12.2016 as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.04.2017 and order of non-bailable warrant dated 05.03.2022 in Case No. 22622 of 2017 (State vs. Santosh Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.894 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though there are categorical allegation in the FIR with regard to the execution of the sale deed by producing some lady as Ms. Dhanwanti Devi by the applicants herein on 12.04.2012. However, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the subsequent sale deed executed by the vendee sale deed dated 12.04.2012 executed by Ms. Uma Devi vendee of the said sale deed. The subsequent sale deed has been found valid. On that basis the subsequent FIR lodged against Ms. Uma Devi has been quashed vide order dated 26.05.2016. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the subsequent sale deed on the basis of the instant sale deed dated 12.04.2012 has been found to be valid. Then the sale deed executed on 12.04.2012 cannot be doubted and the prosecution against the applicants cannot be justified, therefore, they have prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against the applicants.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the vendor of the sale deed dated 12.04.2012 had already expired on 11.11.1994 therefore, the allegation against the applicants is categorical that they have produced someone as lady namely Ms. Dhanwanti Devi, who has in fact already died on 11.11.1994 and by some misrepresentation and in personification, the applicants had got executed the sale deed dated 12.04.2012 and had obtained the financial benefits out of the said sale deed themselves. In view of the categorical findings against the applicants in the FIR and in the statement, no interference is called for at this stage by this Court.
5. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully perused the record of the case and the instant case involves the disputed facts, which cannot be decided while exercising the summary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as there are clear and categorical allegations against the applicants herein and in the FIR as well as the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after the police investigation, charge sheet has been filed against them, the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance, therefore, no interference is required in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the instant application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed in the light of judgments of Apex Court in R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315.
Order Date :- 10.10.2023
Ashish Pd.
