Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1882 (ALL)

Rajesh Malik v. State of U. P.

2019-08-02

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2019
ORDER : Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants as well as power filed today by Shri Ajatshatru Pandey, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 are taken on record. 2. The applicants Rajesh Malik and Randeep Waraich have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned charge sheet dated 03.9.2018, cognizance order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar as well as entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2009 of 2019 (State vs. Rajesh Malik and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1201 of 2018, u/s. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Sector 20 Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. In nutshell the controversy involved in the present matter is that opposite party no. 2 Amit Gupta along with Sanjay Rastogi, Paramjit Gandhi and PTC Mouldings Pvt. Ltd. lodged an F.I.R. dated 22.7.2018 against Rajesh Malik, Randeep Waraich and M/s. Carnoustie Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. with the allegations of cheating forgery and fraud and conspiracy by stating that the accused persons have cheated them for an amount of almost Rs. 5,36,89,000/- (Five crore thirty six lakh eighty nine thousand only) by dishonestly enticing and selling them (complainants) non-existent plots in Noida. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that in the year 2011-12, Rajesh Malik and Randeep Waraich represented themselves to be the Director of M/s. Carnoustie Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was made to appear by these persons that Carnoustie was the sole legal heir of several plots/land in Sectors-96, 97 and 98 in Noida which were being developed by a company known as Unitech Group as a part of its large project known as Unitech Grande. These persons further made to appear that they received these plots from Unitech for valid consideration and were therefore in position to further sell those plots to third parties. It was further made to appear to the complainants that Unitech Hi Tech Developers Ltd. had allotted several plots to Carnoustie including plot Nos. D3, D4, D5, D6 and D7 in Sectors 96, 97 and 98 in Noida, in respect of which the site plans were shown to the complainants by pointing out the location of the plots, on the basis of which the complainants found these plots to be contiguous and well situated. D3, D4, D5, D6 and D7 in Sectors 96, 97 and 98 in Noida, in respect of which the site plans were shown to the complainants by pointing out the location of the plots, on the basis of which the complainants found these plots to be contiguous and well situated. It has also been alleged in the F.I.R. that in order to deceive the complainants, the accused Rajesh Malik and Randeep Waraich made continuous representations to make the complainants believe that they were the sole owners of these plots and would enter into formal documentation to transfer ownership to the successful purchasers. Upon such fraudulent and dishonest representation of facts, the complainants made payments of huge amounts on different dates by way of cheque/RTGS, total of which comes to the tune of Rs. 9,14,78,000/-. The F.I.R. further discloses the amount, date and mode of total 13 different payments made in the year 2012 and 2013 through bank transactions. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that Sanjay Rastogi purchased two plots being D6 and D7 and the seller signed one agreement for plot No. D7 but dillydallied signing of another agreement for plot No. D6. It has been further alleged in the F.I.R. that M/s. Carnoustie Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. with a dishonest intention to perpetuate fraud and cause loss to the complainant, executed as many as seven documents in the form of agreement to sale, irrevocable letter of authority, indemnity/undertaking, allotment letter etc. in favour of Amit Gupta and Sanjay Rastogi. It has been further submitted that the complainants have now learnt that the representations and claims of these persons were not only false but were false to the knowledge of Rajesh Malik and Randeep Waraich at the time of making these representations and claims and hence, the object of cheating is clear. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that these persons began to delay the identification of plots and completing the documentation in favour of complainants on one pretext or other and ultimately refused to complete the allocation process and to give possession of these plots to the representative complainants. It is further alleged that accused persons began stating that they were having talks with Unitech for early release of plots, despite representing themselves as sole owner at the initial stage of negotiations in the year 2011-12. It is further alleged that accused persons began stating that they were having talks with Unitech for early release of plots, despite representing themselves as sole owner at the initial stage of negotiations in the year 2011-12. It is further alleged that the complainants apprehended that there was some collusion with the accused persons and the Unitech Company and as such, when the complainants started asking for refund of their hard earned money along with interest together with compensation, from the accused persons, they started avoiding their calls, and in the year 2017 Rajesh Malik refused to return money and threatened the complainants that he would in turn embroil them and their families into false cases and legal prosecutions. The present F.I.R. dated 22.7.2018 containing the aforesaid allegations was registered as Case Crime no. 1201 of 2018 u/s. 406, 409, 417, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 34 and 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station-Noida, Sector-20, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. 4. The record reveals that the local police conducted investigation of crime in question and after recording statements u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of various persons, supposed to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and after collecting documents/material etc, submitted the charge sheet dated 3.9.2018 against both the applicants Rajesh Malik, Randeep Waraich as well as against M/s. Carnoustie Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., upon which the concerned court below took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 08.10.2018 and the criminal case was registered in the court below as Criminal Case No. 2009 of 2019 (State vs. Rajesh Malik). There is nothing on record to show as to when summons were issued against the applicants and another co-accused but record reveals that the report dated 25.3.2019 was submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime, Bulandshahar before S.S.P., Bulandshahar stating various reasons to conduct further investigation in the matter u/s. 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The record further reveals that on 25.6.2019, the complainant approached the concerned court below i.e. A.C.J.M.-III, Gautam Budh Nagar seeking issuance of non bailable warrants against the accused persons, upon which the concerned court below observed in the order-sheet dated 25.6.2019 that the accused Rajesh Malik had moved application before the court below to provide charge sheet and case diary for the purposes of further investigation, whereupon appropriate order dated 04.5.2019 was passed. The Court below also observed in the order dated 25.6.2019 that the bailable warrants of Rs. 20,000/- were continuing against accused Rajesh Malik and Randeep Waraich and though service report thereof has not been returned but because of the fact that application of the accused Rajesh Malik has already been heard, it is presumed that accused Rajesh Malik had complete knowledge of the proceedings of criminal case, despite which he has not appeared before the court. With such observations, the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Gautam Budh Nagar issued non bailable warrants against accused Rajesh Malik and issued bailable warrants of Rs. 20,000/- against accused Randeep Waraich and fixed next date 18.7.2019. The record further reveals that on 5.7.2019 a supplementary report u/s. 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was submitted by the Station House officer under instructions of higher authorities which was taken on record and the next date was fixed as 18.7.2019. It is also born out from perusal of record that the opposite party no. 2 preferred Criminal Misc. writ Petition No. 13732 of 2019 before the Division Bench of this Court against the order of further investigation in the crime in question, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2019. With such factual backdrop this criminal application has come up before this Court for adjudication upon the reliefs pressed by the applicants. 5. Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicants, Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 6. Main submission raised by applicants' counsel is that though in the initial investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants but on further investigation the inference drawn by the Investigating Officer was in favour of applicants that no offence against the applicants is made out. This report regarding further investigation has not been considered or taken into account so far by the Magistrate. According to counsel for the applicants, the material collected through further investigation and its resultant report are relevant documents to decide whether cognizance in the matter should have been taken or not, and therefore, the court should have once again reconsidered its decision whereby it had taken cognizance of the matter and should have dropped the proceedings in view of favourable report submitted by the Investigating Officer who conducted further investigation into the case. According to applicants' counsel, if the subsequent further investigation contains material favourable to the accused or if the subsequent Investigating Officer has drawn favourable inference, there is no good reason to continue the criminal proceedings going on against the accused. Further submission is that one company Unitech was given a licence to develop a plotted colony. The layout was sanctioned by the Development Authority in favour of Unitech. Unitech allotted these plots to Carnoustie Management Private Limited company in 2007. According to the agreement executed in favour of the aforesaid company the plots were further transferred to certain persons including the informant/opposite party no. 2. This took place in the year 2012 but the possession was not given to the buyers by the Unitech. Multiple persons therefore felt aggrieved by the same and the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Certain aggrieved persons who had formed an association had also preferred an application in the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order on 6.4.2017 which would show that in the Supreme Court, Unitech had given the undertaking that it shall not disturb any of the rights of the members of association. Thus the interim application got disposed of by the Apex Court in view of the undertaking given regarding the protection of the rights of the aggrieved. But later on F.I.R. in this regard was also brought against the applicants' company and applicants, who are the directors of the company. Submission is that therefore the F.I.R. is an overreach and is not tenable and is premature. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for first informant-opposite party no. 2 has in rebuttal submitted that so far as the result of the further investigation is concerned, the law in that regard is that after being submitted in the Court the same would form part of the record and as in the present case the charge has not yet been framed the material so collected may be considered at the stage of framing of the charge. The mere fact that some favourable inference was drawn by the investigating officer in the subsequent further investigation will not efface the material collected earlier on the basis of which the charge-sheet was submitted nor the subsequent report by itself shall preside upon the liquidation of the earlier charge-sheet. The mere fact that some favourable inference was drawn by the investigating officer in the subsequent further investigation will not efface the material collected earlier on the basis of which the charge-sheet was submitted nor the subsequent report by itself shall preside upon the liquidation of the earlier charge-sheet. The eventual impact and consequence of the material collected subsequently and also the inference drawn by the subsequent Investigating Officer may be duly considered by the Court at appropriate stage during the proceedings and may also be used by the applicants as the law might permit. But it shall not vitiate either the process of taking cognizance in the matter or the proceedings of summoning which has been done on the basis of material which existed on that particular point of time when the cognizance was taken and summons were issued. Senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that the respondents had paid the money to Carnoustie company and not to Unitech company and surprisingly enough subsequent to the said payment of money to the Carnoustie company for the purpose of allotment of plots, Unitech company purchased the shares of Carnoustie on the valuation of Rs. 51 crores, despite the fact that initially those shares were valued for a meager amount of Rs. 1 lakh only. Submission is that this internal factual aspect speaks loud about an unholy nexus in between Carnoustie company and Unitech Company. Submission is that if opportunity of trial is given, aforesaid facts may be confirmed and substantiated by documents. It was vehemently contended that the opposite party was given the assurance that Carnoustie was in actual possession of the plots and was in a position to hand it over to the opposite party. It was only after having been duped by this misleading assurance that a lot of money was handed over to the Carnoustie. But subsequently, it was found that those plots did not exist as promised and were not identifiable and the assurance in this regard was nothing except a ruse and a rank bluff and therefore not only the offence of cheating is made out but the dishonest intention is apparent on the face of record from the very outset of the transaction. So far as the Supreme Court litigation is concerned, according to Senior Counsel, the opposite party no. So far as the Supreme Court litigation is concerned, according to Senior Counsel, the opposite party no. 2 was never the party in that litigation and was not a member of that association which was party in the Apex Court litigation. It has also been submitted that even the submission raised on behalf of applicants regarding the undertaking given by the Unitech in the said proceeding that took place in Apex Court, would in fact go to lend to a very great extent a kind of recognition to the genuineness to the claim of the opposite party and the same is not at all incompatible with the allegation made by the first informant and shall hardly go to help or exonerate the accused-applicants from their liability or for being hands in gloves with Unitech. Even otherwise aforesaid proceedings referred to by the defence side would relate to the civil rights of the parties involved and would not at all absolve the accused from the criminal liability with regard to the offences which they have committed and with regard to which the charge sheet against them has been submitted in the Court. Deception, fraud, dishonest inducement, dishonest concealment of true facts and thereby causing wrongful loss and making wrongful gains, all these aspects are writ large from the very outset and the bare perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal the sinister design which actuated the entire criminal transaction, as a result of which the first informant and the other aggrieved persons have suffered huge economic losses and the accused must be tried and punished for the criminal liability which accrues to them. The civil rights and liabilities are decided on the preponderance of probabilities while the criminal charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the proceedings with regard to both of them can simultaneously go together and are not mutually exclusive to each other. According to counsel this is certainly not a case which may be said to be essentially civil in nature or where the alleged offences are not made out from the F.I.R. or where it may be said that deliberately a criminal complexion has been lent to an otherwise dispute of pure civil nature. 8. According to counsel this is certainly not a case which may be said to be essentially civil in nature or where the alleged offences are not made out from the F.I.R. or where it may be said that deliberately a criminal complexion has been lent to an otherwise dispute of pure civil nature. 8. Learned A.G.A. while supporting the stand taken by the opposite party No. 2, has submitted that such a dispute of factual nature raised by the applicants for the purpose of quashing of charge sheet as well as entire proceeding is not liable to be considered by this Court considering the stage of criminal proceeding at which they are pending and such factual controversy should be left for adjudication by the concerned court below at an appropriate stage of proceeding and as such, no interference is required by this Court. 9. In the light of rival submissions of the parties this Court has the occasion to peruse the record which discloses that there are two different reports of investigation conducted in the crime in question which are part of record of the concerned court below, out of which one report submitted u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. is against the applicants disclosing commission of offences by them and another report dated 15.6.2019 is of further investigation submitted u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C., which according to the claim of applicants, is in their favour. An extract or a part of the case diary relating to the said report dated 15.6.2019 has been placed before this court by means of supplementary affidavit. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to consider as to what is the position of law with regard to status and scope of reports submitted by the investigating Officer u/s. 173(2) and Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. In this regard, we may find the procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, according to which after completion of regular investigation, if the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that certain cognizable offences are made out against some accused persons, he is obliged to prepare a report u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. and to forward it along with case diary containing the material in support thereof to the concerned Magisterial court having jurisdiction in the matter, upon which the concerned Magisterial court applies its mind and finds out as to whether any offence is made out or not. If the police report so submitted and the material collected by investigation discloses that the offence is made out, the cognizance of such offence is taken u/s. 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and the proceeding is registered for further course of action. In due course issuance of process follows against the accused persons, who are prima facie found to have committed the offences and who are to be called upon to face the trial. There are other optional modes also available to the concerned Magisterial court while considering report u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. but those other modes are not relevant in the present controversy and need not be discussed. 10. On the other hand, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. provides authority to the Investigating Agency to conduct further investigation in any criminal case, as and when such situation arises and to submit report of such further investigation before the concerned court. For ready reference Section-173(8) of Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below: "173(8)-Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)." 11. There is no dispute with the position of law that on the strength of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., the investigating agency is empowered to conduct further investigation in any criminal case, according to the need thereof and the only rider applicable upon such authority of investigating agency is that the concerned court should be apprised with the requirement of further investigation in criminal case and the Investigating Officer should desirably take permission from the concerned court to conduct further investigation. It is needless to give reference to the case laws in this regard, as this position of law is being consistently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. It is needless to give reference to the case laws in this regard, as this position of law is being consistently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. What is material in this regard is the status of both the reports u/s. 173(2) and 173(8) of Cr.P.C. as well as the scope and stage of consideration by the concerned court upon such reports. For this purpose, it would be useful to refer the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi Versus Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors. reported 2013 (5) SCC 762 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court extensively dealt with the term 'further investigation/reinvestigation/fresh investigation/de-novo investigation' and discussed catena of earlier judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Regarding consideration of further report u/s. 173(8) of Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "41. Having discussed the scope of power of the Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code, now we have to examine the kind of reports that are contemplated under the provisions of the Code and/or as per the judgments of this Court. The first and the foremost document that reaches the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is the First Information Report. Then, upon completion of the investigation, the police are required to file a report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will be appropriate to term this report as a primary report, as it is the very foundation of the case of the prosecution before the Court. It is the record of the case and the documents annexed thereto, which are considered by the Court and then the Court of the Magistrate is expected to exercise any of the three options afore-noticed. Out of the stated options with the Court, the jurisdiction it would exercise has to be in strict consonance with the settled principles of law. The power of the magistrate to direct 'further investigation' is a significant power which has to be exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency and the Court in its supervisory capacity is required to ensure the same. The power of the magistrate to direct 'further investigation' is a significant power which has to be exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency and the Court in its supervisory capacity is required to ensure the same. Further investigation conducted under the orders of the Court, including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code. 42. Both these reports have to be read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto to which the Court would be expected to apply its mind to determine whether there exist grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence. If the answer is in the negative, on the basis of these reports, the Court shall discharge an accused in compliance with the provisions of Section 227 of the Code. 12. In another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmatma Singh Versus Harminder Singh & Ors. Reported in 2011 (6) SCC 102 observations similar to Vinay Tyagi's case (supra) were reiterated, which are being usefully quoted herein below: "15. A reading of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 173, Cr.P.C. would show that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station is required to forward the police report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence stating inter alia whether an offence appears to have been committed and if so, by whom. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the Magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 173, Cr.P.C., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). Thus, the report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of Section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. 16. It will also be clear from Section 190 (b) of the Cr.P.C. that it is the Magistrate, who has the power to take cognizance of any offence upon a "police report" of such facts which constitute an offence. Thus, when a police report is forwarded to the Magistrate either under sub-section (2) or under sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr.P.C., it is for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the police report and take a view whether to take cognizance of an offence or not to take cognizance of offence against an accused person. 17. It follows that where the police report forwarded to the Magistrate under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. states that a person has committed an offence, but after investigation the further report under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. states that the person has not committed the offence, it is for the Magistrate to form an opinion whether the facts, set out in the two reports, make out an offence committed by the person. This interpretation has given by this Court in Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra [ AIR 1968 SC 117 ] to the provisions of Section 173 and Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which were the same as in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 18. In Abhinandan Jha (supra), para 15 at page 122 of the AIR this Court observed: "... The police, after such investigation, may submit a charge-sheet, or, again submit a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. If ultimately, the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts, set out in the final report, constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence, under Section 190(1)(b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, expressed in the final report." ………………………… …………………………………… 20. If ultimately, the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts, set out in the final report, constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence, under Section 190(1)(b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, expressed in the final report." ………………………… …………………………………… 20. In the facts of the present case, the police in its report submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, on 02.02.2006 had filed two challans, one against the appellant, his father Mohan Singh and Bhupinder Singh stating that they had committed offences under Sections 452, 323, 326, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the other challan against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and some others stating that they had committed offences under Sections 342, 323, 324, 148 IPC. 21. Pursuant to permission granted by the learned Magistrate on 27.07.2006 for further investigation, a further report has been made by the Superintendent of Police, City-II, Ludhiana, stating that respondent no. 1 for his self-defence had caused injuries to the appellant and others and hence the cross-case against the respondent no. 1 is required to be cancelled. This further report has to be forwarded to the learned Magistrate and as has been held by this Court in Abhinandan Jha (supra) and Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj (supra) it was for the learned Magistrate to apply judicial mind to the facts stated in the reports submitted under sub-sections (2) and (8) respectively of Section 173, Cr.P.C., and to form an opinion whether to take cognizance or not to take cognizance against the respondent no. 1 after considering the objections, if any, of the complainant, namely, the appellant." 13. Now coming to the factual situation of the present case it appears that it is not a case in which the material collected through further investigation or the report based thereupon u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. was available before the court below at the time when it took cognizance of the offences on the basis of the charge sheet submitted u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. earlier. The report u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. has been admittedly submitted in the court subsequently much later. The Court could have adverted its mind only on the material which was made available before it. If the charge sheet and the case diary contained enough material to justify taking of the cognizance and thereupon summoning the accused, there is absolutely no reason to find fault in the same. The Court could have adverted its mind only on the material which was made available before it. If the charge sheet and the case diary contained enough material to justify taking of the cognizance and thereupon summoning the accused, there is absolutely no reason to find fault in the same. The allegations, as have been made against the accused-applicants, have already been set forth earlier in this order and it is not difficult to see that prima-facie offences are well made out against the accused-applicants on the basis of the F.I.R. itself. The act of taking cognizance and summoning the accused upon the material which was furnished before the court does not suffer from any flaw. The submission of the counsel that even if the report of further investigation was submitted at some later point of time subsequently, the court was still obliged to once again sit upon judgment regarding the act of taking cognizance and should have given a re-look to its decision regarding the summoning of the accused, does not appear to be a very tenable argument. The statutory course provided in the Criminal Procedure Code has to be followed as has been prescribed. In the circumstances of the case there is hardly any occasion to put the clock back. In fact the Courts dealing with criminal matters have no authority to review or recall the orders of import or substance. It is only Section-362 of Criminal Procedure Code which contemplates such a possibility but the same is confined to a very limited class of circumstances. The act of taking cognizance and summoning the accused and the order in that regard as has been done in the present case does not contain any clerical or arithmetic error on the basis of which the same could have been altered or reviewed. There is sufficient hiatus between the submission of charge sheet u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the subsequent filing of the report regarding further investigation u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. The stage to frame the charge is yet to be arrived at and the accused shall have all the opportunity of being heard at that stage. The court while deciding upon the point of framing of the charge shall naturally look into the material furnished by prosecution and made available before it which includes the report regarding further investigation u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. also. The court while deciding upon the point of framing of the charge shall naturally look into the material furnished by prosecution and made available before it which includes the report regarding further investigation u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. also. Both such reports are now available before the concerned court below and it is needless to observe that the concerned court is obliged to consider both the reports at an appropriate stage of the proceedings of criminal case in question, in accordance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no reason to apprehend otherwise. It has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 42 of its decision given in the case of Vinay Tyagi (supra) that both these reports shall be read conjointly and shall be adverted to by the court and it shall apply its mind to them in order to determine whether there exists grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence or not. If the Court would find the answer in negative on the basis of the material, it may proceed to discharge the accused in compliance with the provisions of Section-227 of the Code. It shall be for the court below to look into those aspects and to come to its own independent conclusion. As such, the submissions raised by the applicants' counsel seeking the quashing of proceedings as well as the charge sheet in exercise of inherent jurisdiction merely on the ground of filing of a purportedly favourable further report by investigating agency does not appear to be a sound plea so as to be entertained by this Court. The adjudication on the disputed factual aspects and issues involved in the matter falls within the domain of concerned court below, which may properly evaluate the materials available in case diary as well as the outcome of both the reports submitted u/s. 173(2) and 173(8) of Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of the charge. This Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction does not deem it appropriate to step into the shoes of the trial court and usurp that jurisdiction. It shall be a judicial overreach which this Court does not see any reason to indulge into. This Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction does not deem it appropriate to step into the shoes of the trial court and usurp that jurisdiction. It shall be a judicial overreach which this Court does not see any reason to indulge into. This Court also does not want to enter into any detailed discussion about the merits of the case and make observations in that regard, lest the same may go to prejudice either side or may go to adversely prejudice the mind of the lower court this way or that way. Suffice it to observe that so far as the criminal proceedings presently going on against the applicants based upon the charge sheet submitted earlier are concerned, they are just the logical legal sequel which followed the act of taking cognizance of the offence and are consequential in nature following the act of thereafter summoning the accused on the basis of material contained in the case diary which was available at that point of time and are perfectly within the four corners of law and there is no good reason to quash the same at this stage. 14. So far as the submission on behalf of applicants regarding the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8814-8816 of 2016 is concerned, the factum of membership of opposite party no. 2 in the Association which was party in the Apex Court litigation, has been seriously disputed and it is not born out from the available record of the present case as to whether the opposite party no. 2 was actually the party in the application filed by the Association of UG Noida Villa Owners through its President Sumer Sarin in the said civil appeal (Annexure No. 7 to the paper-book). Likewise the aspect of sanctioning of lay out by the development authority in favour of Unitech company and further allotment of plots to the Carnoustie Management Pvt. Ltd. company are such factual disputes, which cannot be appreciated by this Court for want of complete record of initial investigation as well as that of further investigation and is an issue which is well within the realm of the trial court to go into. 15. 15. Be that as it may, the rival submissions regarding disputed questions of facts are outside the scope of inherent jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C., which is to be used so sparingly only in very appropriate cases. The only legal and procedural question in the present matter was regarding the scope of both the reports u/s. 173(2) and 173(8) of Cr.P.C. as well as the stage of its consideration and the power of concerned court below in this regard. The said issue does not need further elaboration in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as quoted above, according to which it is for the concerned court below to appreciate the same at an appropriate stage of proceedings of criminal case in question. It may not be out of place to mention here at this stage that even in the cases where a final report is submitted in favour of accused at the very outset or the cases where the police may submit a charge sheet and again submit a final report on the basis of further investigation made by it, in all such cases if the Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance itself forms the opinion on the collective consideration of both the reports that the material available constitutes an offence, he can very well take cognizance of the offence u/s. 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the final report. The law on this point is trite and is no more res integra. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha (supra) have already been quoted in the earlier part of the order and this aspect of law does not need further elaboration and the power of the court below in this regard stands well recognized. The mere filing of a final report or filing of a favourable report to the accused will not obliterate or eradicate the allegations of the F.I.R. or the incriminating material collected in support of it by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet was submitted. The mere filing of a final report or filing of a favourable report to the accused will not obliterate or eradicate the allegations of the F.I.R. or the incriminating material collected in support of it by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet was submitted. It is for the court below to exercise its judicial discretion judiciously in this regard whenever it is called upon to evaluate and appreciate the facts of the case and adjudicate upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of material on the basis of which the cognizance may be taken in a given case or the summoning of the accused may be done or the charges against the accused may be framed in a particular case. The law regarding the required standards of sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of an accused or the framing of charges in a particular case is also too well settled to be referred to in any great detail and the relevant law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Court in this regard has to be kept in perspective at the appropriate stages or at different stages as they may arrive in a given case. 16. In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned criminal proceedings do not call for any interference by this Court. 17. The applicants must submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court. If they have not sought their bail so far, they may appear before the court below and do the needful in that regard. If an application of seeking bail is duly moved within a period of five weeks from now, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to. 18. For reasons as discussed above, the prayer contained in this application cannot be allowed. The application in that regard therefore stands dismissed. 19. It is made clear that any observations made in the order must not be construed to have any reflection upon the ultimate merits of the case.