Satish Singh @ Satish Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2889 Jhar

                                       1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 164 of 2014

----

      Satish Singh @ Satish Kumar Singh              .... Petitioner

                                 --   Versus    --

      The State of Jharkhand and Another             .... Opposite Parties

                                        ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

       For the Petitioners       :-     Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
                                        Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
       For the State             :-     Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Advocate
       For the O.P.No.2          :-     Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
                                        ----


12/16.08.2023       Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned counsel for

the respondent State and Mr. Rishav Kumar, the learned counsel for the

O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceeding arising out of Kadma P.S.Case No.45 of 2013, corresponding

to G.R. No. 399 of 2013 pending in the court of learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur, including the order taking cognizance

dated 03.12.2013 /23.12.2013 as contained in Annexure-3. Subsequently,

the charge has been framed against the petitioner which was challenged

by I.A. No.7447 /2022 and by order dated 11.10.2022 the I.A. was

allowed and in view of that the order framing charge dated 29.06.2022 is

also under challenge.

3. The FIR was registered alleging therein the informant is

step brother of the petitioner with their father geing common namely Lal

Brij Mangal Singh. It has been stated in the complaint that the father of

the complainant was founder of the National Athletic Club and Sri Sankat

Mochan Mandir, both situated at Mangal Singh Club, I.C.Road, B.H.Area,

Kadma, Jamshedpur.

It has been further stated that for smooth running of the two

Associations, members were enrolled and committee were formed from

time to time and the father of the complainant was nominated as

Honorary General Secretary of both of the the Associations. The

committee Associations took decision to open two separate saving bank

accounts with Bank of India, Uliyan Branch, Kadma, Jamshedpur for

management of the accounts, fund such as donation, gift etc. for which

Sri Brij Mangal Singh-Hony. General Secretary alongwith the Treasurer-

Satish Singh were authorised to operate the said accounts for the work

and benefit of the two Associations. Accordingly, two saving bank

accounts were opened with the Bank of India, Uliyan Branch, Kadma,

Jamshedpur vide S.B.Account No.7360 of Sri Sankat Mochan Mandir and

S.B.Account No.7361 of National Athletic Club. Sri Brij Mangal Singh, the

then Hony. General Secretary of both the Associations, actively used to

look after and manage the day to day affairs of both the Associations

and was operating both the accounts for the benefit and well being and

development of the two Associations as per the decision of the working

committee and all the papers in connection with the two accounts were

lying with him. Sri Brij Mangal Singh died on 25.05.2011.

Thereafter, it has been alleged that the accused no.1 taking

advantage of the then Treasurer-Satish Singh (petitioner) of the away

the Associations fraudulently theft documents pertaining to the aforesaid

accounts such as Passbook, Cheque Book etc. from the office of the two

Associations.

It has been further alleged that sometime in the last week of

June, 2011 the complainant, who the then Joint Secretary of the two

Associations, had been informed by various members of both the

Associations that the accused no.2 (petitioner) in connivance and in

collusion with the accused no.1, 3 and some other vested persons had

been fraudulently withdrawing huge amount from the two accounts

without the consent, approval or information of the committee of the

two Associations and not towards payment or expense on any account

of the two Associations.

It has been further alleged that the petitioner was operating both

the accounts by suppressing the fact of death of the joint account holder

of the two accounts. It has been alleged that immediately after coming

to know about the illegal and fraudulent act of the accused persons and

after verification finding the illegality to be true and correct, the

complainant gave an objection dated 06.07.2011 to the accused no.1 to

stop the operation of both the accounts.

It has been further alleged that the complainant was surprised to

know that inspite of his aforesaid objection dated 06.07.2011 the

accused persons in connivance and in collusion with each other

withdrew huge amount amounting to Rs.11 lakhs fraudulently from the

two accounts, hence, again vide respective letters dated 16.09.2011 &

23.09.2011 the Vice President of the two Associations raised objections

against the operation of the S.B. Account No.7361 & 7360 before the

accused no.1. It has been alleged that inspite of the objections the

accused no.1 (Bank Manager) did not take any action against other

accused persons as all illegal and fraudulent acts were done by the

accused persons in connivance and in collusion with each other causing

loss to the tune of Rs.11 lakhs to the aforesaid Associations.

Thereafter, in the General Body meeting of both the Associations,

held on 25.09.2011, it was resolved that the accused no.2 for his

aforesaid illegal and prejudicial fraudulent act be removed from the post

complainant was of the Treasurer and the nominated as Hony. General

Secretary of both the Associations and was also authorised to operate

the accounts of both the Associations. It has been stated that the

abstract copy of the resolution were also handed over to the accused

no.1 alongwith a letter dated 01.10.2011 of the complainant.

It has been stated that the complainant vide his letter dated

14.11.2011 made a written complaint to police officials to take

necessary action in the matter but all went in vain making allegations

against the petitioner that the petitioner had got good contact with

some local high politicians and succeeded to prevail upon the police

personnel.

It has been further alleged that the accused persons in

connivance with each other for the wrongful gain and to cause wrongful

loss to the complainant and the Associations had committed the illegal

and fraudulent act. Lastly, it has been alleged that the accused persons

in connivance and in collusion with each other by preparing various

forged documents had withdrawn huge amount to the tune of Rs.11

lakhs from the two accounts of the Associations and knowingly used

such forged documents as genuine for the purpose of cheating.

Thus, making the aforesaid allegations, the complainant lodged the

complaint which formed the basis of the FIR lodged against the

following under sections 420, 409, 467, 471, 379, 34, 1208, I.P.C.:-

      (i)     Bhudeo Chakraborty (Bank Manager)
      (ii)    Satish Singh (petitioner)
      (iii)   Sanjay Kumar (of computer point)
      (iv)    Other unknown persons.

4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the

petitioner challenged the entire criminal proceeding including the order

framing charge on the ground that the petitioner and the O.P.no.2 are

step brothers amongst themselves. He submits that for civil dispute the

complaint case has been filed and the learned court has taken

cognizance and subsequently the charge has been framed which is not

in accordance with law. He submits that the dispute is with regard to

National Athletic Club and Shri Sankat Mochan Mandir accounts

operation which was headed earlier by late Brij Mangal Singh and he has

created the said Club and Mandir Account. He submits that by resolution

dated 25.06.2007 with regard to the National Athletic Club, two persons

namely Brij Mangal Singh and Satish Singh who is the petitioner

authorized to operate the bank account of National Athletic Club. He

further submits that by resolution of even date Shri Sankat Mochan

Mandir account was also authorized to be operated by Brij Mangal Singh

or Satish Singh. By way of referring Annexure-5 which is a photocopy of

the pass-book, he submits that in view of resolution, either or survivor

were authorized to operate the bank account and to buttress his this

argument he refers to Annexure-5 which is a pass-book and submits

that either or survivor were authorized to operate the bank account. He

further submits that in the I.A the entire documents have been annexed

wherein at paragraph no.92 of case-dairy, sub para-6 of the letter, it has

come that the bank has allowed to operate the bank account by Brajesh

Singh, the O.P.No.2 has tried to stop the petitioner herein by way of Will

of late Brij Mangal Singh. He further submits that O.P.no.2 is claiming

the said on the ground of the Will which is not yet probated and that is

not valid in the eye of law. He draws the attention of the Court to the

document with regard to the Will at page no.85 of the main petition. In

this background, he submits that the entire case is vitiated against the

petitioner. He further submits that for civil wrong, if any, the case has

been lodged which is against the mandate of law and to buttress his

argument, he relied in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and

Another v. State (N.C.T of Delhi) Department of Home and

Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706, and relied on paragraph nos.25 and 31

of the said judgment which are quoted below:

"31. We find that the prosecution is mala fide, untenable and solely intended to harass the appellants. We are fortified in view of the respondent not having made any attempt to recover the deposit of rupees one crore through a civil action.

25. Having given our anxious consideration, we are of the view that assuming that there is a security deposit of rupees one crore and that he has misappropriated the dispute between the two parties can only be a civil dispute."

5. He further submits that even the charge has been framed

and the High Court is competent to quash the entire criminal proceeding

and the High Court is in better position to examine those documents and

to buttress his such argument he relied in the case of Satish Mehra v.

State (N.C.T of Delhi) and Another, (2012) 13 SCC 614 and relied

on paragraph no 14 of the said judgment which is quoted below:

"14. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence, there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to be interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognised to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though available, being extraordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfy the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of

the charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually come on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in their entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused."

6. Relying on this judgment he submits that at this stage the

High Court is competent to pass appropriate order even if the charge is

framed. He further submits that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

considered the scope of section 482 Cr.P.C and Article 226 of the

Constitution of India in the case of Haji Iqbal alias Bala Through

S.P.O.A v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2023 SCC Online

SC 946 wherein it has been held that for deciding the said petition, the

High Court is required to go through the documents and read in-between

the lines and he refers to paragraph no.15 of the said judgment, which is

quoted below:

"15. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty

to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."

7. On this ground, he submits that the entire criminal

proceeding may kindly be quashed.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Rishav Kumar, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that in the present case, the

High Court is exercising its power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C and at

this stage a mini trial is not permissible. He submits that the scope of

section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been considered in many cases and he

submits that in the case in hand, the charge has already been framed

and if such a situation is there, this Court may not interfere at this stage

as there are parameters of exercising the powers under section 482

Cr.P.C. which is to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection

and to buttress his such argument, he relied in the case of Amit Kapoor

v. Ramesh Chander and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460. Paragraph

nos.27.2 to 27.16 are quoted herein below:

"27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at

the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.

27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.

27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.

27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.

27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil wrong" with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.

27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.

27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of

continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge. 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.

27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."

9. Relying on this judgment, he submits that a mini trial at this

stage is not required to be conducted by this Court as the dispute is not

between the brothers and the others as has been pointed out by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, however, with connivance the amount

of Rs.11 lacs of the Club and the Mandir was misappropriated by this

petitioner. He draws the attention of the Court to Annexure-10 series

dated 14.06.2011 and submits that the quotation given therein is

generated on the pad of Computer Point which is situated within the

premises of Mangal Singh Club. He submits that the said amount was

withdrawn with regard to such a construction, repair and renovation of

the Club and the Mandir, however, the said Sanjay Kumar Singh who has

generated the said document is not doing the work in that area and he is

only operating the cyber café. He further draws the attention of the Court

to sub para no.4 (b) of para no.92 of the case-diary and submits that the

account no.4126 is of that Computer Point and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-

was transferred on 11.06.2011 wherein the generation of the amount is

contained at Annexure-10 dated 14.06.2011. He submits that what has

been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that can be the

subject matter of trial and that disputed question of fact cannot be

decided by this Court sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C and to buttress his

argument, he further relied in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2021) 9 SCC 35, paragraph nos.10, 11

and 12 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.

11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under

Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.

12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC."

10. Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondent

State submits that the police has investigated the matter and in

paragraph no.92 of the case diary which is annexed with the I.A., the

material has come against the petitioner. He further Submits that this can

be subject matter of trial and at this stage this Court may not quash the

entire criminal proceeding.

11. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the

contents of the FIR as well as the annexures referred by the petitioner

and the O.P.no.2, the order taking cognizance and the order framing

charge.

12. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the O.P.No.2

are step brothers amongst themselves. Brij Mangal Singh, son of late

Raghubir Singh formed the National Athletic Club and Shri Sankat

Mochan Mandir and the account was opened and Brij Mangal Singh and

Satish Singh were authorized to operate the same. The pass book

suggest that it was by either or survivor that has also been disclosed in

the resolution contained in Annexure-4 at page-14. The judgments relied

by Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in

dispute. The judgments are there and the High Court can exercise its

power even if the charge is framed. The High Court is further required to

look into the entire dispute and come to the conclusion as to whether the

power needs to be exercised for quashing of the entire criminal

proceeding or not? as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

recently in Haji Iqbal alias Bala Through S.P.O.A v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others (supra). If civil nature of the case is there, the

High Court is further required to quash the entire criminal proceeding. In

this background, this Court is fastened with the duty to come to the

conclusion whether criminality is there or not? In para 92(4)(b) of case diary

brought on record by way of I.A. No.7447 of 2022 suggest that a sum of

Rs.3,50,000/- was transferred in the bank account of Computer Point on

11.6.2011 in the bank account c.c. no.4126 whereas the document at

annexure-10 series at page no.11 dated 14.06.2011 issued on the letter

pad of Computer Point and it has been argued on behalf of the O.P.No.2

that the said amount of Rs.11 lacs was withdrawn for construction, repair

and renovation jobs of the Club and the Mandir. Rs.3,50,000/- was also

transferred on 11.6.2011 whereas the said generation of bill is at

Annexure-10-series on the letter pad of Computer Point is 14.6.2011,

however, of Rs.3,50,000/- the date is being disputed by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner by way of referring the pass book.

The further question remains that if the construction word was to be

done for repair of the building of the Club and the Mandir the amount is

being generated by the firm which is not doing work in that area and

only the Computer point has raised this invoice contained in Annexure-10

series.

13. Looking into the document with regard to transfer of

amount brought on the record, it suggest that the said amount was

transferred on 11.6.2011 which is being disputed by the learned counsel

for the petitioner and he submits that it is 11.8.2011. He submits that in

Annexure-A/4 the date is 04.8.2011 that is clear, however, in that para,

due to handwriting it is shown like 11.06.2011 in place of 11.8.2011,

however, looking into the said paragraph, the Court is not in a position to

come to the conclusion as to whether it is 11.08.2011. Prima facie, it

looks like 11.06.2011 that can be further proved in the trial.

14. As the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

copy of the counter affidavit has not been served upon the petitioner,

and in view of that, the court is not inclined to look into the said counter

affidavit filed by the O.P.No.2.

15. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that certain manipulation is

there for withdrawal of the amount in question. Whatever has been

argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in

dispute. If the case is clearly arising out of a civil nature of dispute, the

High Court is required to quash the proceeding and that is also not in

dispute that even after framing of the charge the Court can quash the

proceeding as has been held in the two cases relied by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. It is further well settled that even if the

criminality is also made out, the criminal and civil case both can go

simultaneously as has been held in the case of Medchl Chemicals &

Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269. The High

Court is required to exercise its power for quashing of the entire criminal

proceeding with care and circumspection. That is well settled that further

if the charge is already framed that can be quashed if document

submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence is not made out. In

the case in hand the disputed question of fact is involved as has been

discussed hereinabove and the charge has already been framed. The

Court comes to the conclusion that this is not a case to exercise power

sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C.

16. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.164 of 2014 is dismissed.

17. Interim order is vacated.

18. However, the trial will proceed in accordance with law

without being prejudiced to this order as what has been discussed

hereinabove that was for the purpose of only deciding the present

petition.

19. Pending petition if any also stands dismissed accordingly.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/,