No. 205 of 2011 (State of U.P v. Amit Garg) arising out of Case Crime No. 2160 of 2009

No. 205 of 2011 (State of U.P. vs. Amit Garg) arising out of Case Crime No. 2160 of 2009, under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muza6arnagar. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has committed no o6ence. He further submitted that the dispute is of a civil nature. The applicant was an agent of Ashoka Leyland Finance company, whatever he has done, was in o:cial capacity, thus, he is not liable to be punished. He further submits that the vehicle was said to be insured but no insurance policy was issued by the applicant after receiving the money. He further submitted that an accident is said to have occurred by the impugned vehicle due to which owner of the vehicle had to pay the award given by tribunal due to lack of the insurance policy but later on in appeal, it was found correct and order of tribunal was set aside and insurance company paid to entire amount. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly accepted that he did not have the process of investigation, therefore, he could not submit his entire paper before the Investigating O:cer and it is not the part of case diary. It is case of civil nature but complainant / informant tried to give colour to civil dispute into criminal one. It is an abuse of process of law. He showed some papers and statements in favour of his contention. Learned AGA opposed the application and submitted that receiving the money of insurance policy from the informant by the accused-applicant is an admitted fact. It has also been admitted by him that applicant was working as agent at that time. There are speci,c allegation of cheating against him. It has also been admitted by learned counsel for the applicant at Bar that applicant could not submit his paper during investigation due to lack of investigation. He further submitted that whatever argument is advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is factual which cannot be considered at this stage. A look at F.I.R. and allegations made herein, would show that victim / opposite party no. 2 herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicants for the o6ence 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 applicants. 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 e6ect 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. 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 o6ence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the o6ence 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 speci,c grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the o6ences 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 o6ences 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 ,nding 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 the facts and circumstances of the present case, rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties, it cannot be said that no o6ence against the applicant is made out and keeping in view the fact and legal proposition discussed hereinbefore, I do not ,nd any good ground warranting interference. Accordingly, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Certify this judgement to court concerned forthwith through District Judge concerned. Order Date :- 29.3.2022 Manoj YADAV Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad