Shakeel And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Heard learned Counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no.2291 of 2015, State versus Shakeel and others, (case crime no.454 of 2015), Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly and charge sheet dated 01.10.2015. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have committed no offence. Entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. No offence against the applicants is made out under the alleged sections. He further submits that a gift deed in respect of a house is said to be executed in favour of Meraj Bi - applicant no.3 herein by her brother Abdul Majeed, in the year 2005, who was having no children and he was murdered in the year 2009. On the basis of gift deed she has become the owner of the house in question. Thereafter a registered sale deed has been executed in the year 2011 by the applicant no.3 in favour of Shakra Bi - applicant no.4 herein. During his life time gift deed has not been challenged by any one. He further submits that informant tried to settle the dispute of civil nature by making it criminal case. FIR is delayed by three months without any proper explanation. Charge sheet has been submitted against two persons, rest has not been apprehended so far and investigation against them is going on. Accused persons are senior citizen. He showed some papers and statements in favour of his contention. Learned AGA for State opposed the application and submitted that there is allegation of fraud against the applicants which reveals that cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. Applicants did not file copy of statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on which ground charge sheet has been submitted. He could not show any illegality or irregularity in submission of charge sheet. As per allegation made in the FIR, accused-applicant Meraj Bi is alleged to have gotten fake gift deed from his brother Abdul Majeed on 11.06.2005 and thereafter she executed a sale deed in faovur of her daughter Shakeela. When informant tried to talk with them they became annoyed, started abusing and threatened to kill. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. A look at FIR and allegations made herein would show that victim / opposite party no. 2 herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicant for the offence alleged. The question whether the victim will be able to prove the allegation in the manner known to law would arise only at a later stage. It cannot be said that prima-facie case is not made out against the applicant. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under : "15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

#16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.

#17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." (emphasis added) In view of above, facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties; it cannot be said that no case is made out. Learned Counsel for the applicants failed to show any illegality or irregularity in submissions of charge sheet. Accordingly, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.4.2022 I.A.Siddiqui SIDDIQUI Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad