Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 634 (UTT)

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-10-22

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) This C528 petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Criminal Misc. Application by quashing the cognizance and summoning order dated 25.02.2022, chargesheet dated 21.06.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1124 of 2022, titled as “State Versus Abhinav Saxena & others” under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station- Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, arising out of F.I.R No. 461 of 2017, dated 09.08.2017, under Section 420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, and/or pass any other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case. It, is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1124 of 2022. titled as “State Versus Abhinav Saxena & others” under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station- Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, arising out of F.I.R No.461 of 2017, dated 09.08.2017, under Section 420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, during the pendency of the present Criminal Misc. Application before this Hon'ble Court, qua the present applicants. ” 2. Counsel for the petitioners/accused would submit that FIR No.461 of 2017 under Section 420 of IPC was registered at Police Station Kashipur (Annexure No.1 to the petition), with allegations, in brief, that through the branch of ICICI Prudential Insurance Company Limited, Kashipur, the life insurance policies were being issued by showing the dead persons alive and thereafter by taking the insurance amount; that, initially the chargesheet was filed against the other persons but no chargesheet was filed against the present petitioners/accused, however, another chargesheet dated 21.06.2021 (Annexure No.3 to the petition) was filed against the present petitioners/accused without any evidence under Section 420,467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC (as the penal code then was at the time of alleged offence). 3. 3. Counsel for the State would vehemently oppose this petition on the ground that it is not the case where there is no evidence against the present petitioners/accused and he would refer to the statement of the witnesses i.e. the agent of Insurance Company – Sandeep Kumar wherein he has specially stated that petitioners/accused along with Gurdev Singh, Sunder Singh @ Goldi used to bring policies to Raj Kumar Arora and he used to forge signatures of the agents by entering the codes. Counsel for the State would further submit that witness Yameen S/o Babu Hussain, R/o Amiyawala, P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar also stated during the investigation that after death of his father the petitioners/accused came to their house and expressed sadness on the death of his father and took voter ID Card, Ration Card, Death Certificate and Photo of my father by saying that they will get Rs.1.00 lakh; and that, their family thought that perhaps this is the policy of the Government to give money on the death of someone in family. However, later they came to know when police approached them that petitioner no.1 had forged the documents despite the fact that his father did not take any insurance policy from the ICICI Prudential Insurance Company. 4. Counsel for the State would further submit that the petitioners/accused had also filed Writ Petition No.1559 of 2017 (Annexure No.6 to the petition) and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2017 with the observations that contents of the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, therefore, it was not the case for interference in the investigation. 5. Having considered the submissions and after going through the record available on file, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case, in which, the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. should venture into the propriety of the matter. 6. In view of the above, there is no good ground made out to interfere in the impugned orders, accordingly, the C528 petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.