Allahabad High Court
Manjeet Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94977
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20124 of 2021
Applicant :- Manjeet Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri O.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shahsi Dhar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing charge sheet dated 29-10-2019, cognizance order dated 13-03-2020 as well as entire proceeding of criminal case no. 1075 of 2020 (State Vs. Manjeet Kumar), arising out of case crime no. 309 of 2018, under Section 409 IPC, P.S. Roja, district Saharanpur, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case the opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. on 30-06-2018 against the applicant alleging therein a serious discrepancy in the wheat procurement at the Roza Mandi First Wheat Purchase Center during the Rabi Marketing Year 2018-19. The applicant who is the Marketing Inspector in charge, reported that 5252.600 metric tons of wheat were purchased by 15.06.2018. He also stated that 5108.50 metric tons were sent to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) depot, leaving 144.10 metric tons at the center. However, a verification on 29.06.2018 revealed that only 178 bags of wheat were present, not the expected 2882 bags, indicating a shortage of 135.20 metric tons. FCI records also showed that only 4995.48 metric tons were dispatched, suggesting a total shortage of 248.25 metric tons at the center. The applicant did not provide the necessary records and misreported the dispatched quantity. The full payment for the wheat was withdrawn from the government account, indicating potential financial fraud.
4. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet on 29-10-2019 and cognizance was taken on 13-03-2020. The applicant has challenged the charge-sheet as well as cognizance order by means of the instant application. He further submits that the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against him. Further submission is there is no discrepancy in the wheat procurement and the departmental inquiry is still pending. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that the applicant did not provide the necessary records and misreported the dispatched quantity. The full payment for the wheat was withdrawn from the government account, indicating potential financial fraud. Further, from bare perusal of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly taken cognizance against the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the instant application as well as the on going proceedings.
6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:-
"(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.
10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2024
pks
