H I GH COU RT OF UTTA RA N CH A L v. St at e of Ut t aranchal t hrough SSP Haridwar

Judgment

1 . The pet it ion under sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing t he chargesheet No.9/ 2006 in case crim e No.81/ 2005 cognizance

dat ed

19.04.2006 passed by t he Judicial Magist rat e, Haridwar in case No.1594/ 2006 St at e Vs. Chandra Shekhar Joshi under sect ion 406, 419, 420, 471, 120- B I PC P.S. Kankhal, Dist r ict Haridwar . 2 . Brief fact s of t he case are t hat t he respondent No.3- Swam i Jyot ir m ay anand, Assist ant General Secret ary, Shr i Shr i Anandm ay i Sangh Har idwar lodged an FI R at t he police st at ion Kankhal, Dist rict Haridwar on

29.08.2005 alleging t herein t he applicant was an em ployee of Shri Shr i Anandm ay i Singh Haridwar ( hereinaft er referred as ‘Sangh’) . He was post ed as Assist ant Account ant in t he said ‘Sangh’ and he was in- charge of t he cash. The applicant used t o keep t he bank account of t he ‘Sangh’. He also used t o keep t he cheque book, pass books and bank st at em ent of t he ‘Sangh’. I t has been alleged t hat t he applicant obt ained t he signat ure of Swam i Jy ot im ayanand on t he blank cheque which was payable t o “ yourself” . The applicant om it t ed t he word “ your” and as such t he word “ self” rem ained on t he cheque. I n t his way, t he applicant m isappropr iat ed a sum of Rs.25, 66,035/ - of t he ‘Sangh’ by for ged invest m ent and cert ificat es and let t ers. The incurred am ount has been shown in Sardar Sarovar Yoj ana. But , from t he inquires it was revealed t hat no such am ount has been invest ed in t hat Yoj ana. The police invest igat ed t he m at t er and subm it t ed t he chargesheet against t he applicant . Thereaft er, t he learned Magist rat e t ook cognizance against t he applicant v ide order dat ed 19.04. 2006. Feeling aggrieved by t his, t he applicant preferred t he present pet it ion. 3 . Learned counsel for t he applicant cont ended t hat t here is no ev idence against t he applicant . I t w as furt her cont ended t hat t he st at em ent s of Pushraj Pandey and Chandan Didi are not reliable and cogent . I t was furt her cont ended t hat t he I .O. never sent any of t he docum ent s or let t ers t o t he handwr it ing ex pert so as t o ascert ain as t o whet her t he said signat ures have been m ade by t he applicant or not . Learned AGA refut ed t he cont ent ion. Perusal of t he record show s t hat t he w it nesses have support ed t he version of t he FI R. I t has been point ed out t hat Chandan Didi has adm it t ed her signat ures on t he cheques, but she could not st at e under what circum st ances she signed over t he cheques. She has st at ed in her st at em ent recorded under sect ion 161 Cr.P.C. t hat t he said cheques were forged and she had no know ledge about t he forgery. Moreover, t he cont ent ion raised on behalf of t he applicant is a subj ect m at t er of ev idence. This plea can be raised by t he applicant dur ing t r ial. The t r ial court can only evaluat e t he evidence of t he applicant . Now, it is t o be decided whet her t he version of t he applicant is correct or t he version of t he ‘Sangh’ is correct . I t is a quest ion of fact , which has t o be decided during t he t r ial. This court cannot evaluat e t he disput ed fact s of t he case. This Court cannot decide as t o whet her t he ev idence reliable or not . I t has been held by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in M . N a r a y a n d a s V s. St a t e o f K a r n a t a k a 2 0 0 4 Cr i .L. J. p / 8 2 2 t hat t he power of quashing a crim inal proceeding should be exercised very spar ingly and w it h circum spect ion and t hat t oo in t he rarest of rare cases; t hat t he court w ill not be j ust ified em bark ing upon an enquir y as t o t he reliabilit y or genuineness or ot her w ise of t he allegat ions m ade in t he FI R or t he com plaint and t hat t he ext raordinar y or inherent powers do not confer an arbit rary j urisdict ion on t he Court t o act according t o it s whim or capr ise. I t has also been held in St a t e o f K a r n a t a k a V s. M . D e v e n d r a p p a & a n o t h e r 2 0 0 2 ( 2 ) SB R p / 1 5 1 t hat while exercising j ur isdict ion under sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. , t he High Court w ould not ordinarily em bar k upon an enquiry whet her t he evidence in quest ion is reliable or not or whet her on a reasonable appreciat ion of accusat ion w ould not be sust ained. That is funct ion of t he t rial court . 4 . I t is not per m issible for t he High Court t o look int o m at erials, t he accept abilit y of which is essent ially a m at t er of t r ial. While exercising j ur isdict ion under sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. , it is not possible for t his Court t o act as if it is a t r ial court . { St a t e o f M .P. V s. A w a d h K i sh o r e Gu p t a a n d o t h e r s SCC ( Cr i ) 2 0 0 4 p / 3 5 3 } . 5 . I n v iew of t he above, t he pet it ion lack s m erit and is dism issed. Dat ed 17.05.2006 LSR ( J.C. S. Ra w a t , J.)