Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 278 (UTT)

Kundan Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-07-09

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') has been preferred for quashing the chargesheet dated 31.07.2017 and the cognizance order dated 03.07.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.567 of 2018, State Vs. Kundan Singh and Others, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record. 3. Facts, in brief, are as hereunder; FIR in the instant case was lodged by respondent no.2 on 26.05.2016 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. According to the FIR, the informant was in the business of property dealing. They were in search of the land. They came in contact of the petitioner. Petitioner introduced the informant to a Gopal. The co-accused Gopal introduced some other persons to the informant and ultimately on 06.04.2016, an agreement to sale was executed by a lady introducing herself as Mukta Arora. The agreement to sale was executed in the name of informant and Bishan Datt Sharma and Rs.30 Lakhs were also paid as a consideration which was distributed amongst co-accused Gopal and the other persons to whom he introduced to the informant. Subsequently, it was revealed that the agreement was forged because the woman who executed the agreement to sell was not Mukta Arora. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has no role in the commission of offence. According to the FIR, he had only introduced the informant to a Gopal. FIR does not reveal anything against the petitioner. It does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner. It is also argued that, in fact, the informant and the witnesses have also not stated anything against the petitioner except that he introduced the informant to the co-accused. Therefore, it is argued that no prima facie case, as such, has been made out against the petitioner and the proceedings needs to be quashed. 5. On behalf of the State, it is argued that the petitioner and others are group of persons, who cheat innocent people. Therefore, it is argued that no prima facie case, as such, has been made out against the petitioner and the proceedings needs to be quashed. 5. On behalf of the State, it is argued that the petitioner and others are group of persons, who cheat innocent people. It is argued that what offence has been committed by each of the accused and what is the evidence, that is subject-matter of trial and in these proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, evidence cannot be scrutinized. 6. On behalf of respondent no.2, who is the informant in the case, it is argued that, in fact, the petitioner did conceal material facts. He is also witness to the agreement to sale, which was executed by a woman impersonating herself as Mukta Arora. It is argued that, in fact, it is the petitioner, who committed abetment of the offence. The evidence would be scrutinized at the trial. 7. The scope of Section 482 of the Code is much restricted. It is a provision which should be invoked in exceptional and rare circumstances. The basic principle of law is that the trial should not be stopped at its threshold, but, at the same time, there have been a lot of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 , Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised "where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused." 8. In the case of Indian Oil Coprn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 , while discussing the law on the subject, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- "12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 , while discussing the law on the subject, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- "12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 :1988 SCC (Cri) 234 ], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 ] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 ] , Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd, (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045 ], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawal, State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628 ] , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401 ] , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 ] , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786 ] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19 ]and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque., Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283 ] The principles, relevant to our purpose are: - (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not." 9. In order to examine the culpability of a person, evidence cannot be scrutinized in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, but, then in order to be satisfied as to whether any prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, the material needs to be examined. In the instant case, it is being argued that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner. In the instant case, it is being argued that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner. What is prima facie case is not much in dispute. It simply means that some offence has been committed and there are grave doubts that the person has been involved in commission of the offence. To that extent only, the matter is being examined. 10. According to the FIR, the informant was in the property dealing business. He was looking for land. Then, the informant came into the contact of the petitioner and the petitioner introduced him to Gopal. Thereafter, there is a whole lot of chain of events written in the FIR. 11. In his statement under Section 161 of the Code, the informant reiterates the version of the FIR, but, here, he opens him up when he says that the petitioner was not some unknown person to him. He knew him before. What is said is that when they were searching for land one of their associates (Sathi) introduced them to co-accused Gopal and others. At the time of arguments, when the Court asked learned counsel for respondent no.2 that if petitioner was a partner of the informant, where is the question of commission of offence by the petitioner? To it, learned counsel for respondent no.2 would reply that petitioner was not partner of the informant, instead, he was a friend of the informant. 12. In his statement given to the Investigating Officer, the informant has not assigned any other role to the petitioner. Although, now the informant exhibits in this Court that, in fact, the petitioner was also one of the witnesses in the agreement to sale, which was executed by a woman impersonating herself as Mukta Arora. The agreement to sale was purportedly executed in favour of the informant and Bisan Datt Sharma. 13. Bisant Datt Sharma, in his statement given to the Investigating Officer, also states that he is into the property dealing business with the informant. In this context, he states that one of their other associates, petitioner introduced them to a Gopal. It also implies that the petitioner was known to this witness as well. He has also not assigned any other role to the petitioner. 14. In this context, he states that one of their other associates, petitioner introduced them to a Gopal. It also implies that the petitioner was known to this witness as well. He has also not assigned any other role to the petitioner. 14. The only role assigned to the petitioner in the FIR is as an introducer to a Gopal, who allegedly with other coaccussed thereafter executed a forged agreement to sale. The petitioner was not some stranger to the informant. In fact, according to their statements, the petitioner was their associate, but, in Court, it is argued that the petitioner was a friend of the informant. Be it as it may, as stated, the petitioner was much and in good acquaintance with the informant and Bisan Datt Sharma. Allegedly, forged sale deed was executed by a Gopal and other coaccussed. Informant is not a man who did not know the niceties of the sale of land. He was in the property dealing business. He and Bishan Datt Sharma both knew the petitioner well. Both have assigned the role of introducer to the petition. Nothing beyond that. 15. This Court is of the view that even if the allegations made in the FIR or the statements of informant and Bisan Datt Sharma are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised and the chargesheet, and the proceedings of the case deserve to be quashed qua the petitioner. 16. The petition is allowed. 17. Chargesheet dated 31.07.2017 and the cognizance order dated 03.07.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.567 of 2018, State Vs. Kundan Singh and Another, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vikasnagar, District Dehradun are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.