Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 72 (ALL)

R. P. Gupta v. State of U. P.

2019-01-09

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought for quashment of the charge sheet in Case Crime No. 244 of 1995, giving rise to Case No. 2290/2291 of 2002 State vs. R.P. Gupta, under Section 120B I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant has been charged for offence under Section 120B I.P.C. whereas, the same is not sustainable in view of the fact that by virtue of the position/post held by the applicant as Sub-Registrar, offence cannot be said to have been made out under Section 241 of the U.P. Registration Manual. The applicant is not required to go into validity or authenticity of the document meant for registration and he cannot refuse to register the document as such. The applicant was not indulged in criminal conspiracy and there is no direct evidence linking him in commission of the crime. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further added that in this case, bar of Section 197 precludes the court below from proceeding against the applicant. In support thereof, learned counsel has cited decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sankaran Moitra vs. Sadhna Das and Another, (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 358 and has submitted that since the applicant was discharging his official duties, therefore, the proceedings cannot be gone into by the court below without obtaining sanction from the authorities concerned and filing of the charge sheet is absolutely unjustified and is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contended that basic theme of the charge sheet is that the applicant was found to be involved in hatching conspiracy with the other co-accused due to which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved with elaborate details of hatching conspiracy and factum of conspiracy cannot be said to be falling within purview of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The entirety of the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. makes out a case under Section 120B I.P.C. against the applicant. 6. Considered the rival submission and perused the document brought on record, particularly the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. wherein detailed version has been narrated about the case. 6. Considered the rival submission and perused the document brought on record, particularly the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. wherein detailed version has been narrated about the case. The applicant was acting in collusion with the other co-accused due to which wrongful loss was caused to the complainant-opposite party no.2. Perusal of the impugned charge sheet itself is reflective of fact that that the case of hatching conspiracy with the co-accused has been found to be established against the applicant as per material collected during the investigation. 7. In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid citation is not attractable in this case because of the fact that the act done by the applicant for hatching conspiracy does not squarely lie within ambit of discharge of the official duty, therefore, bar of Section 197 is not attracted in this case. 8. Looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet is refused. 9. Consequently, the instant application is dismissed.