Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1939 (ALL)

Aridaman Kumar Jain v. State of U. P.

2016-05-18

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 4200369 of 2013 (State vs. Smt. Shashi Jain and Others), under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. arising out of Crime No. 354 of 2010, Police Station Dehli Gate, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the present matter final report was submitted thrice. Ultimately cognizance was taken on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the police. Though the revisional court affirmed the cognizance order yet the offences levelled against the applicants are not attracted against him. Thus the charge framed against the applicants by the court below are illegal. It is further argued that essential ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. are lacking. It is next contended that the applicant was the recorded tenure holder and illegally his name was deleted. Therefore, a restoration application was filed which is still pending. All these facts have not been considered by the court below while framing the charge. Thus referring to the documents annexed with the application prayer has been made to allow the application quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case including the charges framed against the applicant. 4. Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. argued that the cognizance order was challenged by the applicant before this court and the same was dismissed affirming the cognizance order. Applicant also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the Special Leave to Appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed on 06.09.2013. There is sufficient evidence against the applicant for framing of charges. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through entire record. 6. In the instant matter as is clear from the record, cognizance order was challenged through criminal revision no. 944 of 2013 which was dismissed on 18.07.2013. Order passed in the criminal revision was challenged by Special Leave to Appeal Petition which was also dismissed in the Supreme Court. 6. In the instant matter as is clear from the record, cognizance order was challenged through criminal revision no. 944 of 2013 which was dismissed on 18.07.2013. Order passed in the criminal revision was challenged by Special Leave to Appeal Petition which was also dismissed in the Supreme Court. The court below has framed charges finding sufficient evidence. If the contents of the charges and the evidence available on record are compared in consonance with the settled legal position it is clear that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant to frame the charges. The court dealing with the matter at the stage of framing of charge is not required to analyze the evidence available on record meticulously with a view to see sufficiency of the evidence for the purpose of conviction. From a perusal of the record, it can not be said at this stage that there is no sufficient evidence against the applicant for framing the charges. Thus the application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. In view of the aforesaid observations, the application is hereby dismissed.