Allahabad High Court
Kavindra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 88 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40930 of 2022 Applicant :- Kavindra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manjulesh Kumar Shukla,Yogesh Dutta Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Shri Yogesh Dutta Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash, learned A.G.A. who appears for the State.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 31.5.2000, summoning order dated 27.8.2021 and non-bailable warrant dated 24.12.2021, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) / J.M. Tilhar, Shahjahanpur and the entire proceedings of Case No. 2236/2021 (State Vs. Lokesh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0169 of 2019, under Section 406 I.P.C, P.S. Katara, District- Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the O.P. No. 2 had lodged a First Information Report against Lokesh Kumar and Yogesh Kumar before the above noted Police Station on 14.5.2019 with an allegation that though an assurance was extended that the complainants would arrange a Naval service for the applicant for which, the applicant paid Rs.4,50,000/- and he was sent to Malaysia, but there he discovered that it was the labour's job which was extended to him. Allegations further reveal that when the amount which was being sought to be refunded was being insisted with, then the same was declined which was made the basis for filing of the F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the First Information Report, the applicant has not been marked as an accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the name of the applicant stood surfaced during investigation when in the statement of one Dilip Kumar who happens to be a resident villager deposed the name of the applicant mentioning therein that Rs.19,000/- was transferred which, in fact, was the part and parcel of the transaction of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that barring the said statement there is nothing to link the applicant vis a vis commission of the crime.
Countering the said submission, learned A.G.A has submitted that may be, the name of the applicant does not find place in the First Information Report but during the course of investigation, the name of the applicant stood surfaced, no possible objection can be raised, particularly, in view of the fact that F.I.R is not an encyclopaedia. It has been further argued by the learned A.G.A that the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant basically centres around the factual issues which cannot be gone into present proceedings.
I have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and find myself unable to subscribe to the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant for the simple reason that this Court cannot delve upon factual inquiries that too at a stage when the trial is yet to commence. Even in fact this Court cannot throttle the investigation so as to completely wipe off the possibility of the truth being coming to the surface.
In the absence of pointing out of any jurisdictional error, I find no justification to accede to the request of the applicant for grant of relief.
Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed leaving it open to the applicant to prefer an appropriate application seeking the bail taking all the legal and factual pleas and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same will be decided in accordance with law existing on land with most expedition.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022 N.S.Rathour