Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of U.P And Another on 30 October, 2019
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1302 of 2011 Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukul Rakesh,Shahid Kamal Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 30.9.2009 and consequential cognizance order dated 7.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow in Case No.1338 of 2009, arising out of Crime No.172 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506,/34 IPC Police Station Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.
The complainant Naresh Chandra Agarwal gave a written compliant at the police station on 8.5.2007 alleging that Ganga Steel and Allied Company has 14 bigha 12 Biswa land. The owner of the said company is the petitioner Rajendra Kumar Agarwal. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal got the documents manufactured in connivance with Rameshwar Singh @ Atpat Singh and Vijay Singh @ Malkhan Singh and a power of attorney was registered in respect of the land measuring 19 bigha 16 biswa on 20.8.1997. On the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney, excess of the land of the Gaga Steel and Allied Company has been sold to different persons, which includes the land of the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the FIR at Case Crime No.172 of 2007, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 506 IPC came to be registered against the petitioner and two others named in the FIR.
The police after investigating the offence, has submitted the charge sheet. The Investigation officer has taken into account the power of attorney, Khatauni of the relevant faslis as well as statements of the complainant as well as Lekhpal etc. and filed the charge sheet.
Heard Sri Kr. Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Kr. Shushant Prakash and Sri Yatindra Kumar Agnihotri, learned AGA.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute is of civil nature and one civil suit is pending in respect of the same land and if the statement of the Lekhpal is considered in proper perspective, no offence is said to have been committed by the petitioner and other accused.
On the other hand, learned AGA submits that the Lekhpal is his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. specifically said that land of the Ganga Steel and Allied Company is measuring about 14 bigha and 12 biswa, whereas power of attorney has been executed for 19 bigha 16 biswa and on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney, the excess land has been sold to other persons by manufacturing the documents.
It is no longer res integra that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings, scope of the power vested in the High Court is limited one. The trial court has to look at the allegations in the FIR and the evidence available on record with the charge sheet. It is not required to go into the detail to examine the evidence whether the offence is made out or not. From the allegations in the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that no offence is made out for which the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet.
Considering the scope of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as the allegations in the FIR and the evidence which has been collected during the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses including the Lekhpal and the complainant as well as documentary evidence, at this stage, it is not proper to quash the criminal proceedings.
The petition being devoid of merit and substance, is, therefore, dismissed.
However, it would be open to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail within ten days and the trial court shall consider the bail application of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of ten days, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
Order Date :- 30.10.2019 Rao/-