Allahabad High Court
Ram Roshan Dinkar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60284
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31759 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Roshan Dinkar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Ram Milan Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ambuj Mishra,G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of the Case No.41/IX/2024 (State Versus Ram Roshan Dinkar), under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 IPC, against applicant, Police Station-Pailani, District-Banda, at present pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda including impugned Charge Sheet No.233/2023 dated 06.12.2023, arising out of as Crime No.0026/2021 well as Cognizance/Summoning Order dated 06.01.2024 and other process issued against him by the aforesaid Court.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant FIR has been registered through application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that applicant being a Principal of an Institution, fraudulently withdrew the amount from the account of the institution after making forged and fictitious signature of the informant. Instant FIR has been lodged with malicious intention and it is a counter blast of the complaint. As applicant earlier lodged a complaint against the informant prior to this FIR. No amount has been transferred in the account of applicant. On account of forensic report regarding signature, I.O. has submitted charge sheet against the applicant.
4. Per contra, informant's counsel has vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that applicant withdrew the amount after making forged signature of the informant, which is very much clear from forensic report dated 16.09.2023, as such, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. No interference is warranted, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed.
5. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled 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 an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.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.
6. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, 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, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
7. The present 482 application of applicant-Ram Roshan Dinkar, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
8. However, if the applicant moves discharge application within 15 days from today before the concerned court below, the court below shall decide his application in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of discharge application.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025
Nitin Verma
