Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 905 (ALL)

RAMAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-04-13

RAHUL CHATURVEDI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi J. Heard Sri K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records of the case. 2. After hearing the counsels at length, I propose to decide the matter at the admission stage. 3. By means of present Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant Raman has challenged the order dated 22.5.2015 passed by Special C.J.M. Agra in Case No. 12407/2014 (State Vs. Ravi Kant Yadav and others) U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Tajganj District Agra and also judgment dated 23.9.2017 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 18, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 140/2015 (Raman Vs. State of U.P. and another). Thus from the above, it is clear that only two orders are under challenge by the applicant i.e. order dated 22.5.2015 by which the Special C.J.M. has issued non-bailable-warrants requiring his attendance before the court and when the said order was challenged by means of Criminal Revision No.140/2015, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Agra vide order dated 23.9.2017 dismissed the revision confirming the order dated 22.5.2015. 4. In order to appreciate the entire controversy, it is imperative to spell out certain bare skeleton facts:- (A) On 24.9.2006 the opposite party no.2 Harvir Singh has lodged a F.I.R. against one Raman son of Prem Singh which was registered as Case Crime No. 472/2006 U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Tajganj, Agra on 27.9.2006 with the allegation that after impersonating and manipulating the educational certificates and committing fraud and forgery, the accused has obtained a Government job. (B) It was further stated in the F.I.R. that one Prem Singh father of Raman was working as Class-IV employee (Gardner). He has given a details of his family in which he has declared that he has got his wife, Ramwati (28) and 4 sons. (C) It is also mentioned in the first information report that his personal record shows that out of this wedlock of Prem Singh and Ramwati Devi, there was no son with the name of Raman. The name of eldest son of Prem Singh was Ravi Kant, who in year 2003 appeared in High School Examination but failed. (C) It is also mentioned in the first information report that his personal record shows that out of this wedlock of Prem Singh and Ramwati Devi, there was no son with the name of Raman. The name of eldest son of Prem Singh was Ravi Kant, who in year 2003 appeared in High School Examination but failed. (D) It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that it appears that one Ravi Kant son of Prem Singh in order to get Government job has manipulated the affairs and impersonating him as Raman has got the Government job. Not only has this, the said Ravi Kant after impersonating him as Raman, also obtained a forged experience certificate, as required for the job. All the record shows that for the purposes of obtaining the Government job, Ravi Kant become Raman. This fraud, forgery and cheating may be enquired and investigated by lodging a F.I.R. 5. After lodging the F.I.R., the police started investigating into the matter. The then S.S.I. Shri Om Prakash who conducted the investigation of the case and on 24.12.2006 has submitted a FINAL REPORT but on the directions of S.P. City, Agra dated 26.12.2006, the matter was further investigated and on 31.12.2006 a charge sheet was submitted against Ravi Kant. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Ravi Kant against whom the charge sheet was submitted, approached this court by means of Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8007/2007 and on 20.4.2007 this court has rejected the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application with the direction to surrender within 30 days and get himself bailed out. 7. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that since Ravi Kant died naturally and therefore, no criminal prosecution could proceed against the dead person (Ravikant). 8. I have got the opportunity to peruse the death certificate of Ravi Kant annexed as Annexure No. 4A to the affidavit. The said death certificate was issued on 15th June, 2006 and the date of death of Ravi Kant was shown on 9th August, 2004 at Village Karvala, Tajganj, Agra. It is quite strange, that this F.I.R. was lodged in year 2006 and the police is submitting charge sheet against Ravi Kant on 31.12.2006? The said death certificate was issued on 15th June, 2006 and the date of death of Ravi Kant was shown on 9th August, 2004 at Village Karvala, Tajganj, Agra. It is quite strange, that this F.I.R. was lodged in year 2006 and the police is submitting charge sheet against Ravi Kant on 31.12.2006? How and under what circumstanaces, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet against a dead person, Ravi Kant, is simply puzzling, throws sufficient light upon the integrity, impartiality and professionalism of the I.O. concern, who submitted the charge sheet against a dead person, if at all the said death certified of Ravikant dated 15.06.2006 is true and genuine. 9. Prem Singh, the father of Ravi Kant has filed an application on 25.7.2008 that keeping in view the death of Ravi Kant, the criminal prosecution should be abetted against him and learned C.J.M. vide order dated 14.8.2008 after considering the arguments and perusing the records, has recorded a finding that Raman and Ravi Kant are two different entities and since the Ravi Kant had died earlier and therefore, criminal prosecution against him stand abetted. 10. It is submitted that this order was challenged by the informant Dr. Harvir Singh by means of Criminal Revision No. 364/2008 arraying State of U.P. as only opposites party and the said revision was eventually allowed in favour of informant, quashing the order of learned C.J.M. dated 14.8.2008 directing both the parties namely Prem Singh and Dr. Harvir Singh to appear before the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate would decide the abetment application once again after hearing the parties in the light of evidences adduced by the rival parties. The said order dated 6.4.2009 was passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 18 Agra. This order was never challenged till date by the applicant and thus now has attained the finality. 11. As mentioned above that by means of instant Criminal Misc. The said order dated 6.4.2009 was passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 18 Agra. This order was never challenged till date by the applicant and thus now has attained the finality. 11. As mentioned above that by means of instant Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has challenged the order passed by Special C.J.M. Agra dated 22.5.2015 by which the learned Magistrate has opined that since the charge sheet was submitted against Ravi Kant and from the perusal of case diary, it is clear that Raman after projecting himself as Ravi Kant has obtained the Government job and as such the said charge sheet should be amended to the extent that in the non-bailable-warrants Ravi Kant @ Raman be endorsed and 23.6.2015 was date fixed to procure his attendance. 12. Needless to mention here that Raman son of Prem Singh was made sole accused in the F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer ought to have submitted a charge sheet against him but as mentioned above for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, he has submitted charge sheet only against Ravi Kant, which was rectified by the Magistrate vide order dated 22.5.2015. 13. Soon after issuance of non-bailable-warrants, Raman son of Prem Singh came into light first time and by means of Criminal Revision No. 140/15, he has challenged the orders passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18 vide judgment dated 23.9.2017. 14. I have keenly perused all the impugned orders, materials on record, heard and the prayer sought by the applicant. As mentioned above, the applicant is challenging only two orders dated 22.5.2015 by which learned Special C.J.M. Agra issued non-bailable-warrants against the applicant and when same was challenged by means of Criminal Revision, the said revision too was dismissed confirming the order of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra dated 22.5.2015. The learned counsel for the applicant has vainly tried to persuade his argument by taking ground no. 17 and 16. "16. That the accused person are entitled for hearing before the revisional Court in view of the section 401(2) Cr.P.C., which is fully supported with the guideline of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghuraj Singh Rausa Vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in Criminal Appeal No. 2054 of 2008. 17. 17 and 16. "16. That the accused person are entitled for hearing before the revisional Court in view of the section 401(2) Cr.P.C., which is fully supported with the guideline of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghuraj Singh Rausa Vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in Criminal Appeal No. 2054 of 2008. 17. That the entire further proceedings initiated after the order 06.04.2009 passed by the revisional Court in Criminal Revison No. 364 of 2008 : Dr. Harveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. Is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction." 15. The entire further proceeding initiated after the order dated 6.4.09 passed by learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 364/2008 (Dr. Harvir Singh Vs. State) is abundantly illegal and without jurisdiction, keeping in view that the accused persons are entitled for hearing before revisional court in view of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. which is fully supported with by the guide lines of Hon'ble Apex Court inre: Raghuraj Singh Rousha Vs. Shivam Sundaram Promotors Pvt. Ltd. & Another in Criminal Appeal No. 2054/2008. 16. I have gone through the entire judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and there is no quarrel with restgard to the legal proposition lay down by Hon'ble Apex Court but I am afraid that the aforesaid judgement passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Agra dated 6.4.09 is not under the challenge since that order has not been challenged and has attained finality, it cannot be permitted to open it after 9 years. 17. The entire controversy is with regard to as to whether Raman and Ravi Kant are two different persons or they are one and same persons is subject matter of trial and in exercise of powers U/s 482 Cr.P.C. this court is simply incompetent to decide this factual aspect of the issue. The parties are directed to appear before the competent court for the trial, since the matter relates to year 2006 and it is expected from the learned Magistrate to gear up the trial. 18. In the event the non-bailable-warrants are still operational, the applicant is hereby directed to surrender before the authority of the court and get himself bailed out within aforesaid period and cooperate and participate in the conclusion of trial as and when required by the court concern. 19. With this observation, the instant Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. 20. 19. With this observation, the instant Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. 20. The Registry is hereby directed to transmit the copy of this order to court concern for necessary action in compliance.