State v. Keshraj) as well as charge
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120679 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10706 of 2024 Applicant :- Keshraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Km Preete,Manju Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Legal Reasoning
10. Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defense of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defense of the accused. Further it is also well settled that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. 11. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicants and the law as stated above, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is without any substance and is thus dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2024 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)
Arguments
1. Heard Km. Preete, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Keshraj, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the cognizance order dated 21.08.2023 along with all sub-sequential orders passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 9308 of 2023 (State Vs. Keshraj) as well as charge-sheet dated 13.07.2023 submitted in Case Crime No. 14 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application. 3. The facts in the present case are that a first information report was lodged on 06.01.2023 by Sunny Kumar against the applicant, Sunil Kumar and Mohammad Moshin with the allegation that the applicant- Keshraj introduced him to Sunil Kumar on 25.11.2021 for getting him employment in the Forest Department, Gorakhpur on which he was assured of a job on payment of Rs. 11,00,000/- for which half of the money was to be given before and half was to be given after he joins the job. He believing them to be true gave Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash. He then received on his whatsapp an ID and joining letter and then transferred Rs. 2,60,000/- in the account of Keshraj and Rs. 3,40,000/- in the account of Mohammad Moshin from the account of Arpit Kumar his brother-in-law. When he went to the Forest Department, Gorakhpur with the joining letter he was informed that the same is a forged letter and no such letter has been issued by the office. He states that the accused persons have committed forgery and cheating with him and have taken Rs. 11,00,000/-. Keshraj has cheated him and his brother-in-law by giving forged document and played with his life. A report be lodged and action be taken. 4. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet dated 14.07.2023 was filed against the applicant- Keshraj for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. The court concerned took cognizance upon the same vide order dated 21.08.2023 and summoned him to face trial. The present application has thus been filed before this Court with the aforesaid prayers. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the first information report has been lodged after a delay of more than one year without any explanation therein. It is submitted while placing paragraph 14 of the affidavit that from the bank statement of Arpit Kumar the brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 which is part of the case diary it appears that Rs. 1,00,035/- was transferred to the account of the applicant and no other money has been received by him. It is submitted that the entire allegations in the first information report regarding cash money being given by the opposite party no.2 is totally false and baseless. Learned counsel submits that in so far as the date of the transaction of money in the bank account is concerned, the same is different in the statement of the informant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that even the perusal of the alleged ID and the alleged appointment letter is concerned, the same are having dates prior to the date of meeting of the applicant with the opposite party no.2 and as such the same are totally manipulated documents and the implication of the applicant on the basis of said document is with malafide intentions. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Kharwar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh: AIR 2022 SC 3901 and while placing the said judgement it is argued that the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings against the accused in the said case on the ground that no offence is made out. It is submitted that in the present case also no offence is made out. Further learned counsel has placed the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Ali & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.: 2023 INSC 684 and while placing paragraph 12 & 13 of the same has submitted that the Apex Court has held that the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation of the case as well as the material collected in the course of investigation and should also, if need be, with due care try to read between the lines. It is submitted that looking to the same and the documents and the attending circumstances, the applicant who is having no criminal history as stated in para 27 deserves that the present application be allowed and the proceedings against him be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that the allegations against the applicant and accused persons are of committing cheating and forgery with the opposite party no.2 on the pretext of procuring him a job and in that context forged documents were sent to him on his whatsapp. It is submitted that money was also transacted with regards to the said transaction and the said fact also finds support from paragraph 14 of the affidavit that the applicant received money from the bank account of Arpit Kumar the brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that thus receiving of money in the bank account of the applicant on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is not disputed and denied. It is submitted that even the case of the applicant as pleaded in paragraph 22 of the affidavit that he was a friend of Arpit Kumar and had borrowed money from Arpit Kumar in his hard days for the care of his mother which was returned is the defense of the applicant which cannot be looked into at this stage. It is submitted that the matter was thoroughly investigated after which a charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and the investigation in so far as co-accused Sunil Kumar and Mohammad Moshin are concerned, is pending and is going on. It is submitted that the court concerned has taken cognizance upon the charge-sheet finding sufficient material against the applicant. The present petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present case is of the applicant introducing the opposite party no.2 to other co-accused persons and assuring him of employment in Government department. The allegation is of transaction of money between them also. The applicant has received huge amount from the bank account of the brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 which is also stated to be part of the decided money. In so far as difference of dates in the first information report and the version of the informant during investigation is concerned, the same itself cannot be the basis of knocking out the prosecution case as a whole. The judgements as relied by learned counsel for the applicant cannot be of any help to the applicant since the facts of the present case are crisp & clear of the applicant indulging in false assurance to the first informant and transactions of money which are not denied and disputed. The explanation for the transaction cannot be looked into at this stage as the same would be matter of evidence and trial. 9. The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as under: "13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge: 13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences. 13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. 13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. 13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.) 13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. 13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. 13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC. 13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. 13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. 13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."