Kaleem Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal

- Rakesh Kumar Mittal on 06.09.2003 lodged the first Information report against co-accused Ram Singh and another co-accused M.L. Dubey stating therein that the co-accused Ram Singh has illegally possessed the property of the respondent No. 2 whereas he has not sold the property to the co-accused (cid:150) Ram Singh. On the basis of the said report the police investigated the matter and submit the chargesheet on

23.01.2004 before the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun under Section 420, 447, 448, 467 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Thereafter, learned Magistrate, cognizance on 15.05.2004 against the petitioner and registered a Criminal Case No. 478 of 2004, State Vs Kaleem Ahmad under the aforesaid sections.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court.

Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the First Information Report. The Investigating Office committed error in submitting the chargesheet against him. Therefore, the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed. He has further alleged that the petitioner is a businessman and residing at Saharanpur and he has no concern with the sale and purchase of the property in question. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had introduced the respondent No.2 with co-accused Ram Singh and M.L. Dubey.

After going through the entire material available before me, I do not agree with the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the record reveals that the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the chargesheet submitted by the police station concerned as well as the evidence available on record summoned the petitioner to face the trial.

The Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in JT 1995 (3) Supreme Court 166 reported in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thirukkural Perumal has clearly observed, which reads as under:- (cid:147)The power of quashing the F.I.R. and criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly by the Courts. Indeed the Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the First Information Report as well as criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various judgments, but the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. of complainant on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation only while dealing with the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing the F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings. (cid:148)

In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any abuse of process of the court in this case at this stage. The submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to the factual aspect of the matter and that can be examined and assessed by the trial court during the course of the trial. At this stage, I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the reliability of the evidence which is yet to be adduced before the court during the course of the trial. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

The stay order dated 01.10.2004 stands vacated.

However, in case, the petitioner appears before the court below where the trial is pending, in order to obtain the bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously without causing any unreasonable delay. (B.C. Kandpal, J.)

07.01.2008 ASWAL