Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3625 (ALL)

Satish Mani Tripathi v. State of U. P.

2016-11-04

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 2630 of 2013 (Vishwa Vijay Tiwari Vs. Satish Mani Tripathi) under sections 419, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Farenda, Maharajganj. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 13.4.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in criminal revision no. 61 of 2014 and summoning order dated 2.7.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Farenda, Maharajganj. 2. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted against him in the present matter, as the certificate said to have been issued in the name of applicant was not produced at anywhere and no benefit was derived by the applicant on the basis of said certificate. It was further submitted that unless and until certificates are used for taking any benefit, offence under section 420 IPC would not be attracted. It was further submitted that applicant himself had filed a writ petition no.12087 of 2005 before this Court for cancelling his certificates issued by the U.P. Secondary Education Board, which was allowed and in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Board has cancelled all the educational certificates of the applicant relating to high school and intermediate examinations. Thus, on this basis also, allegations levelled in the complaint against the applicant have become false. Complainant has no locus to file the complaint as no loss was caused to the complainant from the said certificates issued in the name of the applicant. It was next submitted that a civil suit is pending between the applicant's family and the family of opposite party no.2 and due to that reason, without any locus, present complaint has been initiated on the basis of malice by the complainant. No wrongful loss occurred to anyone. 4. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant constitute the commission of cognizable offence. Hence complainant has locus to file the complaint. No wrongful loss occurred to anyone. 4. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant constitute the commission of cognizable offence. Hence complainant has locus to file the complaint. It was further submitted that offence has been committed against the State and every person has a right to initiate prosecution either by lodging the first information report or by filing a complaint. It was next contended that applicant himself in paragraph no.15 of the affidavit annexed with the application has admitted that at the same point of time by showing different date of births he has obtained two equal degrees from different institutions. Merely on the basis that degree/certificate obtained from U.P. Secondary Education Board, was cancelled through the writ petition, the offence committed by the applicant does not come to an end. The order passed by the revisional court and in lieu thereof the summoning order passed by the Magistrate concerned both are legal. 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record. 6. In this matter, initially the first information report was lodged, wherein police, after investigation, submitted the final report. Protest petition filed in this matter was treated as complaint and evidence, as required under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was collected. The complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. A criminal revision was filed before the concerned Sessions Judge. Revisional court allowed the revision setting aside the order passed under section 203 Cr.P.C. and directed the Magistrate concerned to pass a fresh order in the light of the observation recorded by the revisional court. Thereafter, the Magistrate concerned passed the impugned summoning order on 2.7.2016. As far as the plea taken by the applicant that complainant has no locus to file the complaint is concerned, submission raised by the learned A.G.A. in this regard is acceptable. Offence, said to have been committed by the applicant, is a cognizable offence. Thus, it cannot be said that complainant has no locus to file the complaint. As far as the plea taken by the applicant that complainant has no locus to file the complaint is concerned, submission raised by the learned A.G.A. in this regard is acceptable. Offence, said to have been committed by the applicant, is a cognizable offence. Thus, it cannot be said that complainant has no locus to file the complaint. So far as the cancellation of the certificates issued in the same year by the U.P. Secondary Education Board in the name of the applicant equivalent to the degree of Higher Secondary Board in writ petition by this Court is concerned, when applicant himself is admitting that two equivalent certificates have been issued in the name of the applicant in the same year, which could not be issued in the eye of law, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant to constitute the offence under section 419, 420 IPC. The observation recorded by the revisional court are in accordance with law. Merely on the basis that certificates issued by the U.P. Secondary Education Board have been cancelled by this Court in writ petition, applicant will not be exonerated for the act committed by him by showing different date of births at different places simultaneously for obtaining equivalent certificate in the same year. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, finding no illegality, infirmity or impropriety, this Court does not find any need to interfere in the impugned orders. No ground to exercise the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed at this stage itself.