Allahabad High Court
Anil Juneja vs State Of U.P.And Another on 13 October, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13652 of 2020 Applicant :- Anil Juneja Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava,S. Rashid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A,Prashant Sharma Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of case crime no. 35/2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, police station Kotwali Nagar, district Saharanpur as well as charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020 and summoning order dated 24.08.2019 submitted in the aforesaid case.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima facie case is disclosed against him. It was submitted that applicant is an Advocate in district court Saharanpur and he has nothing to do with the crime in question. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature and that earlier a civil suit being O.S. No. 12 of 1984 was instituted in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Saharanpur regarding disputed property and the proceedings related to that matter have travelled up to second appeal before this Court. During investigation, no evidence was found against the applicant, but despite that applicant was charge-sheeted merely on the basis of bald allegations. After filing of charge-sheet in the alleged case, the complainant has also lodged one more first information report vide crime no. 324 of 2019 at police station Kotwali Nagar, district Saharanpur against the applicant by making similar allegations and in that matter, after investigation, police have submitted final report. Learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution of applicant is based on presumptions and surmises and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the case of The Commissioner of Police and Ors. vs. Devender Anand and Ors. (criminal appeal no. 834 of 2017) and K.L. Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Another (482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 39907 of 2013).
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application and argued that in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons, applicant has prepared forged documents in relation to disputed property and a suit, being O.S. No. 522/2016, was filed against opposite party no. 2, which was dismissed due to non-prosecution. It was submitted that applicant has again filed a suit in the year 2020 against opposite party no. 2 regarding disputed property. It was submitted that applicant was involved in the forgery of documents and cheating in relation to disputed property, whereas the disputed property belongs to the temple and that applicant and co-accused persons wants to grab it illegally. It has further been submitted that applicant is the main person behind the entire matter related to this case. It was submitted that in this case, the applicant is not appearing before the court below and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has already been issued by the court below against him.
At the very outset, it may be mentioned that after issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has already been issued against the applicant and all these facts show that he is absconding in this case and thus, his conduct is not bona fide and the instant application is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.
Even on merits of the matter, perusal of record shows that there are allegations in the FIR that he has prepared forged documents i.e. lease-deed in relation to disputed property with mala fide intention. In view of the allegations made in FIR and material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint/ charge sheet and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet/ complaint may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. If a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
In the instant matter in view of allegations made in first information report and material collected during investigation a prima facie case is made out. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
I have gone through the case laws, which have been cited by learned counsel for the applicant, but in view of specific facts and circumstances of the case, the case laws cited by learned counsel for the applicant do not provide any help to the applicant. After considering arguments raised by the learned counel for parties and perusing the impugned chargesheet and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 CrPC. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Considering material on record and position of settled law as laid down in case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 as well as recent case of Apex Court in Rajeev Kourav V Bhaisahab & Ors (Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2020), decided on 11.02.2020, no case for quashing of charge-sheet/ proceedings is made out.
Accordingly, the application lacks merit and is rejected.
Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Anand