Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 325 (UTT)

RAJENDRA PRASAD PANDEY v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2009-06-23

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2163 of 2002; State Vs. Rajendra Prasad Pandey, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 471 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was moved by respondent No. 2 Govind Singh Jalal against the petitioner Rajendra Prasad Pandey with the allegations that he got executed a forged agreement of sale of the House No. C-161, Nehru Colony, Dharampur, Dehradun, on 16.05.1997. Under orders of the Magistrate on said application, first information report was registered against the petitioner. After investigation, impugned charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 471 of I.P.C. 4. On receipt of the charge sheet, it appears that the petitioner was summoned as an accused. After giving necessary copies, he was heard on charge on 03.06.2002, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The petitioner challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate before the revisional court (Sessions Judge, Dehradun) by filing criminal revision No. 69 of 2002. After hearing the parties, said revision was also dismissed vide order dated 20th of July 2002. Thereafter, this petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was tenant in the House No. C-161, Nehru Colony, Dehradun, and he filed Suit No. 671 of 2000, against respondent No. 2, and obtained an injunction order. It is further stated that the document in question was genuine and not the forged one. It is further contended that the petitioner has committed no cheating. 6. It is further stated that the document in question was genuine and not the forged one. It is further contended that the petitioner has committed no cheating. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavit filed on their behalf, this Court is of the view that it cannot decide a factual dispute whether, the document in question is forged or not, or whether, the cheating is actually committed or not, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is a matter for the trial court to record the evidence and see whether the petitioner is guilty or not? 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the case of V.Y. Jose and another Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 996, and contended that since the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, as such, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. I have gone through said case law and found that the facts and circumstances of that case are different to the present one. In the present case, there are allegations that the petitioner (accused) has committed forgery to cheat the respondent No. 2. The matter was investigated by the investigating agency and charge sheet was filed after completion of the investigation. Not only this, after considering the evidence on record, charge has also been framed against the accused (present petitioner). Framing of charge has also been affirmed by the revision court, as mentioned above. Now, at this stage this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial, pending against the petitioner. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case pending against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is liable to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.