Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 361 (ALL)

Vidya Sagar Singh v. State of U. P.

2021-03-05

RAJENDRA KUMAR IV

body2021
JUDGMENT : Rajendra Kumar- IV, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla as well as Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, namely, Vidya Sagar Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Ram Prakash, Abhai Narayan Rai, Mahmood Ahamad, Arvind Yadav, Fauzdar Chauhan and Ravi Kant Rai for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.9.2020 in Criminal Case No. 308 of 2003, under sections 260, 263-Ka, 419, 420, 407, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District and further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 308 of 2003, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have committed no offence. Applicants were bona fide purchaser of alleged stamps of respective amount. Applicants were registered as Contractor of the department. They filed the alleged stamp to get agreement executed. There was no motive to accused/applicants to commit the present crime. It has been further submitted by him that stamp duty have been duly deposited, thus there is no harm to the State Government. It has been further submitted that stamp paper of respective amount was purchased by them by Stamp Vendors who used to sell in Tehsil Campus and Stamp Vendors were not traced out by Investigating Officer, therefore, Stamp Vendors has not been arrested so far and they are moving freely. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the accused/applicants, Investigating Officer did not conduct the proper investigation. He further argued that charge-sheet has been filed against the accused/applicants in casual manner. He showed some papers in support of his contentions. 4. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that accused-applicants have, admittedly, submitted fake stamps papers they used them knowing to be forged, for getting registered agreement. He further submits that all the submissions and pleas of the applicants are based on facts which cannot be adjudicated at this stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Brief facts of prosecution story for disposal of instant application is that accused-applicants filed fake stamp of respective amounts on which Vendors name was disclosed as Randhir Singh, license no. He further submits that all the submissions and pleas of the applicants are based on facts which cannot be adjudicated at this stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Brief facts of prosecution story for disposal of instant application is that accused-applicants filed fake stamp of respective amounts on which Vendors name was disclosed as Randhir Singh, license no. 321 and all these stamps were found forged in an inquiry, they were not found to be issued from the Treasury. Signature and seal on the stamp papers were also found fabricated. FIR was registered. Investigation came to be conducted and Investigating Officer, found sufficient evidence and after completion of investigation, submitted charges sheet against the accused-applicants. 6. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, although the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. 7. It is also well settled that evidence of accused-applicants or defence evidence and any question of fact cannot be determined at the stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. Veracity or truthfulness for the statement or any documents can only be adjudicated after the evidence is adduced by the party in trial court. 8. In case of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 Supreme Court has held “21. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defence raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defence raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” 9. A look at allegations made in First Information Report would show that victim/opposite party herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicants for the offence alleged. The question whether the complainant will be able to prove the allegation in the manner known to law or accused/applicants were bona fide purchaser of the impugned stamps and they have purchased for consideration, would arise only at a later stage after the evidence is adduced by the parties. It cannot be said that prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. 10. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259 , Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. 11. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107 , Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under : "15. 11. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107 , Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under : "15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." (emphasis added) 12. Recently, Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1817 of 2019 (M. Jayanthi Vs. K.R. Meenakshi and another) decided on 02.12.2019 has held as under :- "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged." 13. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties and keeping in view the facts and legal proposition discussed hereinabove, I do not see any illegality or irregularity, legal or otherwise, warranting interference in the submission of charge-sheet. It is not a case of grave injustice. No good ground to quash the charge-sheet. 14. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 15. It is however, provided that if the applicants move an application for discharge at proper stage, same shall be heard and decided by the court concerned preferably and expeditiously within three months in accordance with law, considering the material facts and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and plea raised by accused-applicants.