Allahabad High Court

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashok Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. and Shri Abhishek Awasthi, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. By means of the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated

03.05.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gola, District Kheri and the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri in Case No.5817 of 2024 taking cognizance of the offences and summoning the applicants to face the trial, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of a First Information Report dated 10.03.2024 lodged by the opposite party no. 2 Khatoon Jahan, stating that she is a 80 years’old lady. Under a conspiracy hatched by the applicant no. 1 Najibul Raheem Khan and the applicant no. 2 Javed Khan, they had set-up the applicant no. 3 Azra Kulsum as an imposter for the informant and she executed a sale deed in respect of 13 Acres of the informant’s land. Najibul Raheem Khan got a fake power of attorney executed by Azra Kulsum projecting her as the informant. The informant came to know about the aforesaid forged sale deed and power of attorney in the year 2001 and she filed a suit for cancellation of the aforesaid documents. The suit was decreed on 01.04.2015 and the sale deed and the power of attorney were cancelled. The applicant No.3 had filed a suit in Lakhimpur Kheri seeking a declaration that she is Khatoon Jahan (the informant) but she got it dismissed for want of prosecution on

23.11.2002. In the year 2005, the applicant nos. 1 and 2 got an unregistered forged will deed of the informant executed by the applicant no. 3 for usurping the informant’s land and they also got prepared a forged death certificate of the informant. The applicants prayed for mutation of their names before the Consolidation Court on the basis of the forged will but the Consolidation Court rejected this request by means of an order dated 09.06.2023. The informant stated that although she is alive, the applicants are trying to usurp her land by falsely claiming that she is dead.

4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet on 03.05.2024 and the trial court has taken cognizance of the offences and has summoned the applicants to face the trial by means of an order dated 09.08.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of false allegations, in respect of a dispute which essentially is of a civil nature.

6. The Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the application and they have stated that the allegations contained in the FIR clearly make out commission of cognizable offences.

7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have further submitted that in spite of service of summons of the case, the applicants did not appear before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court had issued bailable warrants against them by means of an order dated

03.03.2025. The applicants had challenged the order issuing bailable warrants against them by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4181 of 2025 and the said petition was disposed of by means of an order dated 20.05.2025 providing that the applicants may appear before the trial Court and apply for their release on bail and their bail application will be decided keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I.: (2021) 10 SCC 773. The applicants have not appeared before the trial Court and they have not applied for their release on bail as ordered by this Court in the aforesaid order.

8. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that it clearly alleges preparation of forged sale deed, power of attorney and will and attempts made by the applicants to usurp the informant’s land by wrongly showing her to be dead whereas she is alive. These allegations clearly make out commission of cognizable offences by the applicants. The allegations made in the FIR have been supported by the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the application.

9. I am of the considered view that the prosecution case prima facie make out commission of cognizable offences by the applicants and the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in taking cognizance of the offences and summoning the applicants to face the trial.

10. Further, the applicants’ conduct in not appearing before the trial Court and applying for their release on bail in spite of the order dated

20.05.2025 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4181 of 2025 also disentitles them to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. The learned counsel for the applicants has advanced various other submissions on the merits of the case and he has drawn attention to a death certificate annexed with the application and he insisted that the Court should hear all his submissions and deal with the same.

12. While deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet and summoning order, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations leveled in the FIR and material collected during investigation prima facie indicates involvement of the applicants in commission of any cognizable offence. While dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging validity of a charge-sheet and summoning order, this Court is not required to go into the defence put up by the accused persons or to scrutinize the evidence in the case. That would be done during the trial where the parties will have adequate opportunity to lead their evidence and present their case.

13. In C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh: (2023) 18 SCC 399, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons had made submissions on merits of the allegations made against the accused persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all those submissions were the defenses, which would be considered during the trial and the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to deal with or considering the submissions made on merits on the allegations against the accused as any observation might affect the parties during the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. This is not the stage where the prosecution is required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency.

14. When this Court had pronounced the order upto this stage, the learned Counsel for the applicant kept on insisting that he should be permitted to advance all his submissions on the merits of the case. The Court asked him to first address on the point whether this Court can examine the defence of the accused persons while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the applicant stated he should be permitted to advance all his submissions. He advanced submissions based on the defence case only and submitted that earlier the applicant No.1 had lodged an FIR in this matter in which a charge- sheet was submitted and warrants were issued against the present informant. However, he did not respond as to whether this Court can examine the defence case while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When the learned Counsel for the applicant did not answer the Court’s query regarding scope of enquiry while deciding a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and he kept on advancing submissions on the merits of the case, the Court stopped putting any question to the learned Counsel and permitted him to go on uninterruptedly whereupon the learned Counsel for the applicants stated that if this is the approach of this court, he will not appear before this Court henceforth.

15. Advocates are officers of the Court in the sense that they are an integral part of justice dispensation system. However, unlike other officers employed by the Court, appearance of an Advocate before a Court is always voluntary and in case an Advocate chooses not to appear before any particular Court, he cannot be compelled to do so. But the statement that the Counsel would henceforth not appear before the Court for the reason that the learned Advocate was insisting that the Court should hear and deal with all his submissions regarding merits of the case whereas the Court did not agree for it and was requesting the learned Counsel to first address whether in spite of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh (Supra) this Court can examine the merits of the case at this stage and when the learned Counsel did not accede to the Court’s request, the Court stopped interfering in his submissions by putting any question and started listening to him quietly, cannot be appreciated by the Court.

16. At this stage, at the suggestion of Sri. Mohammad Asif Khan, the learned A.G.A.I, who is a senior member of the bar, the learned Counsel for the applicant stated that the aforesaid utterances had slipped out of his tongue and he did not mean it. Therefore, this matter stands closed.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date: 09.07.2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

03.05.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gola, District Kheri and the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri in Case No.5817 of 2024 taking cognizance of the offences and summoning the applicants to face the trial, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of a First Information Report dated 10.03.2024 lodged by the opposite party no. 2 Khatoon Jahan, stating that she is a 80 years’old lady. Under a conspiracy hatched by the applicant no. 1 Najibul Raheem Khan and the applicant no. 2 Javed Khan, they had set-up the applicant no. 3 Azra Kulsum as an imposter for the informant and she executed a sale deed in respect of 13 Acres of the informant’s land. Najibul Raheem Khan got a fake power of attorney executed by Azra Kulsum projecting her as the informant. The informant came to know about the aforesaid forged sale deed and power of attorney in the year 2001 and she filed a suit for cancellation of the aforesaid documents. The suit was decreed on 01.04.2015 and the sale deed and the power of attorney were cancelled. The applicant No.3 had filed a suit in Lakhimpur Kheri seeking a declaration that she is Khatoon Jahan (the informant) but she got it dismissed for want of prosecution on

23.11.2002. In the year 2005, the applicant nos. 1 and 2 got an unregistered forged will deed of the informant executed by the applicant no. 3 for usurping the informant’s land and they also got prepared a forged death certificate of the informant. The applicants prayed for mutation of their names before the Consolidation Court on the basis of the forged will but the Consolidation Court rejected this request by means of an order dated 09.06.2023. The informant stated that although she is alive, the applicants are trying to usurp her land by falsely claiming that she is dead.

4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet on 03.05.2024 and the trial court has taken cognizance of the offences and has summoned the applicants to face the trial by means of an order dated 09.08.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of false allegations, in respect of a dispute which essentially is of a civil nature.

6. The Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the application and they have stated that the allegations contained in the FIR clearly make out commission of cognizable offences.

7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have further submitted that in spite of service of summons of the case, the applicants did not appear before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court had issued bailable warrants against them by means of an order dated

03.03.2025. The applicants had challenged the order issuing bailable warrants against them by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4181 of 2025 and the said petition was disposed of by means of an order dated 20.05.2025 providing that the applicants may appear before the trial Court and apply for their release on bail and their bail application will be decided keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I.: (2021) 10 SCC 773. The applicants have not appeared before the trial Court and they have not applied for their release on bail as ordered by this Court in the aforesaid order.

8. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that it clearly alleges preparation of forged sale deed, power of attorney and will and attempts made by the applicants to usurp the informant’s land by wrongly showing her to be dead whereas she is alive. These allegations clearly make out commission of cognizable offences by the applicants. The allegations made in the FIR have been supported by the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the application.

9. I am of the considered view that the prosecution case prima facie make out commission of cognizable offences by the applicants and the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in taking cognizance of the offences and summoning the applicants to face the trial.

10. Further, the applicants’ conduct in not appearing before the trial Court and applying for their release on bail in spite of the order dated

20.05.2025 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4181 of 2025 also disentitles them to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. The learned counsel for the applicants has advanced various other submissions on the merits of the case and he has drawn attention to a death certificate annexed with the application and he insisted that the Court should hear all his submissions and deal with the same.

12. While deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet and summoning order, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations leveled in the FIR and material collected during investigation prima facie indicates involvement of the applicants in commission of any cognizable offence. While dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging validity of a charge-sheet and summoning order, this Court is not required to go into the defence put up by the accused persons or to scrutinize the evidence in the case. That would be done during the trial where the parties will have adequate opportunity to lead their evidence and present their case.

13. In C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh: (2023) 18 SCC 399, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons had made submissions on merits of the allegations made against the accused persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all those submissions were the defenses, which would be considered during the trial and the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to deal with or considering the submissions made on merits on the allegations against the accused as any observation might affect the parties during the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. This is not the stage where the prosecution is required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency.

14. When this Court had pronounced the order upto this stage, the learned Counsel for the applicant kept on insisting that he should be permitted to advance all his submissions on the merits of the case. The Court asked him to first address on the point whether this Court can examine the defence of the accused persons while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the applicant stated he should be permitted to advance all his submissions. He advanced submissions based on the defence case only and submitted that earlier the applicant No.1 had lodged an FIR in this matter in which a charge- sheet was submitted and warrants were issued against the present informant. However, he did not respond as to whether this Court can examine the defence case while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When the learned Counsel for the applicant did not answer the Court’s query regarding scope of enquiry while deciding a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and he kept on advancing submissions on the merits of the case, the Court stopped putting any question to the learned Counsel and permitted him to go on uninterruptedly whereupon the learned Counsel for the applicants stated that if this is the approach of this court, he will not appear before this Court henceforth.

15. Advocates are officers of the Court in the sense that they are an integral part of justice dispensation system. However, unlike other officers employed by the Court, appearance of an Advocate before a Court is always voluntary and in case an Advocate chooses not to appear before any particular Court, he cannot be compelled to do so. But the statement that the Counsel would henceforth not appear before the Court for the reason that the learned Advocate was insisting that the Court should hear and deal with all his submissions regarding merits of the case whereas the Court did not agree for it and was requesting the learned Counsel to first address whether in spite of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh (Supra) this Court can examine the merits of the case at this stage and when the learned Counsel did not accede to the Court’s request, the Court stopped interfering in his submissions by putting any question and started listening to him quietly, cannot be appreciated by the Court.

16. At this stage, at the suggestion of Sri. Mohammad Asif Khan, the learned A.G.A.I, who is a senior member of the bar, the learned Counsel for the applicant stated that the aforesaid utterances had slipped out of his tongue and he did not mean it. Therefore, this matter stands closed.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date: 09.07.2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi J.)