Allahabad High Court
Smt. Indu Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 October, 2019
Author: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38256 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Indu Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Dhar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet no. 112 of 2018, dated 11.9.2018 filed in Case Crime No. 92 of 2018, under Sections 323, 406 I.P.C., P.S.- Tarawa, District- Azamgarh, as well as cognizance order dated 18.12.2018 which are pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 11, Azamgarh.
Heard applicant's counsel and learned AGA.
Entire record has been perused.
Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the first informant-opposite party no.2, who is mother of applicant is an old lady and she was residing with her as another legal heir/second daughter of opposite party no.2 had already died. Further submission is that it was the applicant who was taking care of the opposite party no.2 but the present F.I.R. has been lodged against her on the instigation of the son of another daughter of opposite party no.2. It has also been submitted that from the evidence collected during investigation the offences punishable u/s 406 and 323 I.P.C. is not made against the applicant. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicant's counsel but all of them relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
Perusal of the record of the present case shows that initially F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 against her own daughter i.e. the present applicant on 5.6.2018 u/s 406, 420, 323 I.P.C. The allegations contained in the F.I.R. are that the first informant was having two daughters namely Jamwanti and Indu Devi (applicant) but the applicant had grabbed entire property by committing forgery and after selling out the same had taken the entire money. It has been further alleged in the F.I.R. that the first informant was ousted from the house after being beaten. It has also been alleged that the papers related to fixed deposits were in the custody of applicant and was not being returned to the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 was medically examined at Primary Health Centre Tarwa on 5.6.2018 and as per her injury report she had received two injuries on her person in the shape of complaint of pain with swelling. Injury no.1 was advised x-ray. In her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no.2 had fully substantiated the prosecution version and had specifically stated that the applicant had got transferred her entire property, disposed of it and had grabbed the entire money. Even the papers related to fixed deposits was not being handed over to her. There was further allegation of marpeet with the first informant in aforesaid statement of opposite party no.2. The Investigating officer after conducting investigation found that from the material collected during investigation the offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. was not made out against the applicant but there was sufficient material to show that the applicant had committed offences punishable u/s 406/323 I.P.C., and therefore, charge sheet against the applicant was submitted u/s 406/323 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate after going through the entire material including case diary had taken cognizance on 18.12.2018.
The submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the cognizance order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.10.2019 Naresh/M Kumar