High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130896 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22265 of 2024 Applicant :- Tahjibun Nisha And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 07.09.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 30.03.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7931 of 2024 (State v. Sadruddin & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 183 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj. Brief facts of the case are that the a first information report has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 12.04.2023 at 13:55 hrs. under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against two named accused, father of applicant no. 1 and one unknown including the applicants. Allegations, as per the FIR, are that the informant is 85 year old illiterate lady and is suffering from various ailments. Her first marriage was solemnized with one Badruddin, out of their wedlock Sadruddin (husband of applicant no. 1 and son of opposite party no. 2) was born. On 22.10.2022, said Sadruddin and his wife Tahjibun (applicant no. 1) took the informant for the purposes of widow pension. The applicant no. 2 (father of applicant no. 1), namely, Mohd. Hakeek also came there along with one unknown person. They got the photograph of the informant prepared and took thumb impression on few blank papers giving impression that an application for widow pension is to be moved before the concerned authority. Abdul Lateef (son of opposite party no. 2) came to know from villagers that some customers are roaming for purchase of the property which belongs to opposite party no. 2. On being inquired, he came to know that accused persons have cheated opposite party no. 2 by getting a sale deed executed in a forged manner as they used the papers wherein thumb impression of opposite party no 2 was taken under the garb of moving an application for widow pension. After execution of sale deed, the mutation proceedings have also been carried out showing service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 by obtaining forged signatures thereon. After taking statements of the witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against husband of applicant no. 1 (son of opposite party no. 2) on 22.06.2023 and another chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants on 07.09.2023, wherein the applicants have been summoned. Hence the present application. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged the present FIR with false and frivolous allegations as the applicant no.1 is wife of opposite party no. 2's son who was born out of wedlock of first marriage performed by opposite party no. 2, therefore, on the dictates of another son, who was born out of second marriage of opposite party no.2, the present case has been lodged. He further submits that the matter is of civil in nature and in this regard some suit for cancellation of sale deed has been filed, therefore, to give criminal colour to a civil dispute, present proceedings have been instituted. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that from the version of the FIR and statements of the witnesses, it is clear that the applicants had accompanied the opposite party no. 2 on the date of incident and had taken her thumb impression on blank papers giving her impression that an application has to be moved before the competent authority for sanction of widow pension, and one Mohd. Mohd. Tahseen, independent witness has clearly stated about the forgery as played by the applicants including other accused persons as named in the FIR. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicants for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 07.09.2023 and summoning order dated 30.03.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 13.8.2024 DS