Teetu And Another v. State of U.P. And Another

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash/set aside the order dated the 22.02.2022 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra, District-Agra in Criminal Case No. 4581 of 2022, (State Vs Prabhat Gautam & Another) as well as the impugned Charge sheet No. 238 of 2021 dated 05.12.2021, submitted in Case Crime No. 0389 of 2021, Under Sections 384, 427, 504 I.P.C at Police Station- New Agra, District-Agra and entire criminal proceeding of the Criminal Case No.4581 of 2022, (State Vs Prabhat Gautam & Another), which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra.

3. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant entered in the plot of the informant and misbehave with the informant and demanded Rs.15 lakhs and removed electric meter installed there. Informant produced pen-drive, which was examined by the FIR writer, where, it was found that applicant was talking with the informant and other persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no material evidence to prosecute the applicant under Section 384 Cr.P.C. as witnesses have not stated in their statement that applicant has demanded money. All allegations alleged in the FIR are false, baseless & without support o any cogent evidence. He next submitted that brother-in-law of the applicant, namely, Anil Chaudhary, who is president of the society, used to run construction company, from whom, informant had purchased materials used in constructions and had not paid money and when applicant pressurized informant, then, he issued two cheques dated 26.06.2006 and 14.07.2007, amounting to Rs.10 lakhs but both the cheques were dis-hounoured. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench in Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu And Another Vs. State of U.P. And Another; reported in 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1387.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that on perusal of contents of FIR and materials available on record, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. Moreover, submission of the applicant that informant had issued cheques in favour of the applicant's company, and the same were dis-honoured but no complaint whatsoever has been registered against the opposite party no. 2 in that regard. Other submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed question of facts, which cannot be considered at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of record, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. Learned Magistrate has found material evidence against the applicant, as such, took cognizance and issued summons against the applicant. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant, is not applicable in the present case. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.

6. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

7. The present 482 application of applicant- Prabhat Gautam Alias Prabhat Kumar Gautam, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

9. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Aditya

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash/set aside the order dated the 22.02.2022 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra, District-Agra in Criminal Case No. 4581 of 2022, (State Vs Prabhat Gautam & Another) as well as the impugned Charge sheet No. 238 of 2021 dated 05.12.2021, submitted in Case Crime No. 0389 of 2021, Under Sections 384, 427, 504 I.P.C at Police Station- New Agra, District-Agra and entire criminal proceeding of the Criminal Case No.4581 of 2022, (State Vs Prabhat Gautam & Another), which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra.

3. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant entered in the plot of the informant and misbehave with the informant and demanded Rs.15 lakhs and removed electric meter installed there. Informant produced pen-drive, which was examined by the FIR writer, where, it was found that applicant was talking with the informant and other persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no material evidence to prosecute the applicant under Section 384 Cr.P.C. as witnesses have not stated in their statement that applicant has demanded money. All allegations alleged in the FIR are false, baseless & without support o any cogent evidence. He next submitted that brother-in-law of the applicant, namely, Anil Chaudhary, who is president of the society, used to run construction company, from whom, informant had purchased materials used in constructions and had not paid money and when applicant pressurized informant, then, he issued two cheques dated 26.06.2006 and 14.07.2007, amounting to Rs.10 lakhs but both the cheques were dis-hounoured. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench in Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu And Another Vs. State of U.P. And Another; reported in 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1387.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that on perusal of contents of FIR and materials available on record, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. Moreover, submission of the applicant that informant had issued cheques in favour of the applicant's company, and the same were dis-honoured but no complaint whatsoever has been registered against the opposite party no. 2 in that regard. Other submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed question of facts, which cannot be considered at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of record, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. Learned Magistrate has found material evidence against the applicant, as such, took cognizance and issued summons against the applicant. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant, is not applicable in the present case. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.

6. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

7. The present 482 application of applicant- Prabhat Gautam Alias Prabhat Kumar Gautam, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

9. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Aditya