Allahabad High Court
Govind Alias Pappu Gangwar Alias ... vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 9 January, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45973 of 2019 Applicant :- Govind Alias Pappu Gangwar Alias Gopindra Swarup And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Surendra Pal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 16.10.2005 and cognizance order dated 13.07.2006 in Criminal Case No. 6461 (State Vs. Summeri Lal) arising out of Case Crime No. 908 of 2004, under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have already been enlarged on bail. Opposite party no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R. against two accused persons, namely, Summeri lal and Lalta Prasad with the allegations that few persons were posted on the post of Assistant Teacher in Prathmik Vidyalaya by using forged documents. On the basis of complain, inquiry was conducted, wherein, it was found that the applicants performed teaching in these Prathmik Vidyalayas, the same is also clear from the statements of charge sheet witnesses, therefore, charge sheet has been submitted under the relevant Sections. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have not named in the F.IR.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. He further states that the applicants are innocent and the inquiry has been conducted in a biased manner. As per the inquiry conducted, applicants were not teaching in any Prathmik Vidyalaya and not working as Assistant Teacher. Therefore, he submits that the entire prosecution of the criminal case are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants by stating that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicants for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of the Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the court below 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 reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430, (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 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 reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 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 reported in 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.
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 proceedings against the applicants 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 charge-sheet or the proceedings is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The present application has no merit and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 9.1.2020 Priya