High Court

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned complaint has been lodged by opposite party No. 2/complainant making false and baseless allegations. The dispute relates to renewal of the society registered as 'Madarsa Islamiya Arabia Committee'. Earlier opposite party No. 2 has made a complaint to the Sub Registrar Societies of Firms making similar allegations and later the impugned complaint was lodged. It was submitted that the dispute regarding renewal of the said society has to be decided by the Sub Registrar and the complainant has not appeared before the said Registrar despite issuance of notice. The opposite party No. 2/complainant is still a member of the said society. It is further submitted that there is no evidence of any inducement and thus, no prima facie case under section 420 IPC is made out against the applicants. Learned counsel has referred the facts of the matter and submitted that the impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has made clear allegations that he is a member of 'Madarsa Islamiya Arabia Committee' and on 20.07.2022 a proposal for renewal of the said society was sent and after that he came to know that the renewal of the said society has already been made by making some more members and by making forged signatures of some of the members. The complainant has alleged that applicants have made forged signatures of the complainant as well as of Anwar Shah, Jameel Ahmad and others. In his statement under section 202 Cr.P.C., Anwar Shah has also supported the said allegation that his forged signatures were shown on the proposal for renewal of the said society. Similar is the statement of another witness Jameel Ahmad.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the opposite party No.2/complainant has made allegations against the applicants that he is life time member of the 'Madarsa Islamiya Arabia Committee' and that the applicants have indulged in renewal of the said society by making forged signatures of complainant as well as of other persons. It was alleged that renewal of said society was made by using forged signatures of complainant and others. In his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant has made clear allegations that he is a member of 'Madarsa Islamiya Arabia Committee' and on 20.07.2022 a proposal for renewal of the said society was sent and after that he came to know that the renewal of the said society has already been made by making forged signatures of some of the members. The complainant has alleged that applicants have made forged signatures of the complainant as well as of Anwar Shah, Jameel Ahmad and others. The witnesses examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. have also supported the version that their forged signatures were shown on the documents. Whether the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out or not that can be considered by the court concerned at the stage of framing of charge. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section under Section 528 BNSS.

8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 528 BNSS. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

9. However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants, provided applicants co-operate in early disposal of the discharge application.

10. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Anand

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned complaint has been lodged by opposite party No. 2/complainant making false and baseless allegations. The dispute relates to renewal of the society registered as 'Madarsa Islamiya Arabia Committee'. Earlier opposite party No. 2 has made a complaint to the Sub Registrar Societies of Firms making similar allegations and later the impugned complaint was lodged. It was submitted that the dispute regarding renewal of the said society has to be decided by the Sub Registrar and the complainant has not appeared before the said Registrar despite issuance of notice. The opposite party No. 2/complainant is still a member of the said society. It is further submitted that there is no evidence of any inducement and thus, no prima facie case under section 420 IPC is made out against the applicants. Learned counsel has referred the facts of the matter and submitted that the impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has made clear allegations that he is a member of 'Madarsa Islamiya Arabia Committee' and on 20.07.2022 a proposal for renewal of the said society was sent and after that he came to know that the renewal of the said society has already been made by making some more members and by making forged signatures of some of the members. The complainant has alleged that applicants have made forged signatures of the complainant as well as of Anwar Shah, Jameel Ahmad and others. In his statement under section 202 Cr.P.C., Anwar Shah has also supported the said allegation that his forged signatures were shown on the proposal for renewal of the said society. Similar is the statement of another witness Jameel Ahmad.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the opposite party No.2/complainant has made allegations against the applicants that he is life time member of the 'Madarsa Islamiya Arabia Committee' and that the applicants have indulged in renewal of the said society by making forged signatures of complainant as well as of other persons. It was alleged that renewal of said society was made by using forged signatures of complainant and others. In his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant has made clear allegations that he is a member of 'Madarsa Islamiya Arabia Committee' and on 20.07.2022 a proposal for renewal of the said society was sent and after that he came to know that the renewal of the said society has already been made by making forged signatures of some of the members. The complainant has alleged that applicants have made forged signatures of the complainant as well as of Anwar Shah, Jameel Ahmad and others. The witnesses examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. have also supported the version that their forged signatures were shown on the documents. Whether the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out or not that can be considered by the court concerned at the stage of framing of charge. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section under Section 528 BNSS.

8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 528 BNSS. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

9. However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants, provided applicants co-operate in early disposal of the discharge application.

10. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Anand