High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 31.10.2023, summoning order dated 09.11.2023, passed in Case No. 70858/2023, arising out of Case Crime No.971 of 2022, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, PS Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of CJM, Ghaziabad.

3. Prosecution story is that complainant contacted with Deepak Giri, Deepak Chaudhari and Mukesh Gupta for purchasing Duplex, they deal with property and showed him 1 duplex RDC- 114-HIG area 100 Mtr. owned by Surendra David Simon R/o F-72 Govindpuri, Meerut , the aforesaid property had been sold by an imposter Surendra David Saaemon on 15.09.2020 under sale consideration of Rs.78,00,000/-, moreover, these accused did not provide him copy of sale deed. Complainant took loan of Rs.71,04758 from Hinduja Housing Finance, Vaishali, Ghaziabad of which D.D. dated 03.09.2020 has been given to Surendra David Saaemon. In April 2022, when complainant went to duplex to get possession, the tenant was residing in disputed property and told that property has already been sold to some Vinay Kumar Singh and owner Surendra David Saaemon is residing in U.S.A., then he came to know that the accused have cheated him by executing sale deed through an imposter, moreover, the D.D. of Rs.71,04,750/- has also been taken by them fraudulently and it has been credited in the bank account of Surendra David Saaemoon, as an imposter.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. Informant and Investigating Officer has arbitrary implicated the applicant in present case, moreover, applicant has deposited whole amount to the bank and no dues certificate has also been issued by Hinduja Housing Finance, Vaishali, Ghaziabad dated 31.03.2024, the same is annexed as Annexure 14 to the affidavit. Applicant implicated in the present case on account of the amount of Rs.3,26,000/- has been transferred in the account of applicant from the loan account. Since, whole amount has been deposited in bank, hence, no case is made out against the applicant in the aforesaid sections.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that from record it is apparent that the alleged amount of Rs.3,26,000/- has been transferred in the applicant's account from loan account after filing forged and fabricated documents and with the help of other co-accused persons, he executed sale deed and got loan from the bank on forged papers. Moreover, the submission raised by applicant's counsel is disputed question of facts which cannot entertained at this stage.

6. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.

7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

8. Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel, learned AGA and perused the record, it is apparent that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant, who with the help of other co- accused, made forged and fabricated papers and took loan from bank. The offence against the applicant under the aforesaid sections is made out. It is apparent from record that a sum of amount Rs.3,26,000/- has been transferred in the applicant's account from loan account, as such, complicity of the applicant cannot be ruled out and applicant was rightly summoned by the trial court. The impugned order, passed by trial court, is just and proper and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Submission of applicant's counsel is disputed question of facts, which cannot be entertained at this stage. No interference is warranted.

9. The present 482 application of applicant-Gaurav Agrawal, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Nitin Verma NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 31.10.2023, summoning order dated 09.11.2023, passed in Case No. 70858/2023, arising out of Case Crime No.971 of 2022, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, PS Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of CJM, Ghaziabad.

3. Prosecution story is that complainant contacted with Deepak Giri, Deepak Chaudhari and Mukesh Gupta for purchasing Duplex, they deal with property and showed him 1 duplex RDC- 114-HIG area 100 Mtr. owned by Surendra David Simon R/o F-72 Govindpuri, Meerut , the aforesaid property had been sold by an imposter Surendra David Saaemon on 15.09.2020 under sale consideration of Rs.78,00,000/-, moreover, these accused did not provide him copy of sale deed. Complainant took loan of Rs.71,04758 from Hinduja Housing Finance, Vaishali, Ghaziabad of which D.D. dated 03.09.2020 has been given to Surendra David Saaemon. In April 2022, when complainant went to duplex to get possession, the tenant was residing in disputed property and told that property has already been sold to some Vinay Kumar Singh and owner Surendra David Saaemon is residing in U.S.A., then he came to know that the accused have cheated him by executing sale deed through an imposter, moreover, the D.D. of Rs.71,04,750/- has also been taken by them fraudulently and it has been credited in the bank account of Surendra David Saaemoon, as an imposter.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. Informant and Investigating Officer has arbitrary implicated the applicant in present case, moreover, applicant has deposited whole amount to the bank and no dues certificate has also been issued by Hinduja Housing Finance, Vaishali, Ghaziabad dated 31.03.2024, the same is annexed as Annexure 14 to the affidavit. Applicant implicated in the present case on account of the amount of Rs.3,26,000/- has been transferred in the account of applicant from the loan account. Since, whole amount has been deposited in bank, hence, no case is made out against the applicant in the aforesaid sections.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that from record it is apparent that the alleged amount of Rs.3,26,000/- has been transferred in the applicant's account from loan account after filing forged and fabricated documents and with the help of other co-accused persons, he executed sale deed and got loan from the bank on forged papers. Moreover, the submission raised by applicant's counsel is disputed question of facts which cannot entertained at this stage.

6. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.

7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

8. Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel, learned AGA and perused the record, it is apparent that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant, who with the help of other co- accused, made forged and fabricated papers and took loan from bank. The offence against the applicant under the aforesaid sections is made out. It is apparent from record that a sum of amount Rs.3,26,000/- has been transferred in the applicant's account from loan account, as such, complicity of the applicant cannot be ruled out and applicant was rightly summoned by the trial court. The impugned order, passed by trial court, is just and proper and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Submission of applicant's counsel is disputed question of facts, which cannot be entertained at this stage. No interference is warranted.

9. The present 482 application of applicant-Gaurav Agrawal, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Nitin Verma NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad