Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82875
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14992 of 2024
Applicant :- Arun Kumar Saxena
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Mani Srivastava,Vikas Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 1A/2020 dated 22.12.2022 and proceedings of Special Case No. 1 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 209 of 2013 & Case Crime No. 981 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)D r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 1, District Bareilly.
3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that with regard to an incident which took place between 09.10.2000 and 04.04.2004, a first information report was lodged on 12.08.2013 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 13(1)D r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly against 29 persons including the present applicant, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet dated 22.12.2022 was submitted against five accused persons, namely, Deep Chand Prajapati, Arun Kumar Saxena, Radhey Shyam Rastogi, Kishan Swaroop and Raghunandan Pratap under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)D r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, .
4-In this case, the main allegation is that the then Basic Education Officer, Bareilly has prepared a list of transfer/adjustment of 268 Assistant Teachers. According to departmental rules, the stencil of said list should have been cut and circulated but in violation of the directions of the authority concerned and departmental rules, separate transfer orders were issued to the concerned teachers after preparing the format of transfer order through computer, with the help of the applicant and different dispatch numbers 6082 to 6349 were allotted. In the said process, forged transfer orders were given to several persons.
5-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was a stenographer in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur therefore, he had no concern with the allegation levelled in the F.I.R., as such, the criminal proceedings against the present applicant is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that on 26.07.2018, the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018 came into force wherein Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been omitted by the legislature. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no offence is made out against him.
6-Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant submitted that upon perusal of F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicant, as per prosecution case, cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
7-Having examined the matter in its totality, I find that on the date of cause of action of this case and lodging of the F.I.R., Section 13(1)D of Prevention of Corruption Act was in force. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no concern with the case is concerned, the same is a 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 to 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.
8-This Court does not find that this case fall 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 applicant 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.
9-The relief as sought by the applicant through the instant application is hereby refused.
10-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024
Saurabh
