Allahabad High Court
Lallan Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 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. - 47095 of 2019 Applicant :- Lallan Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 04.09.2016 and cognizance order dated 12.04.2019 in Case No.198 of 2015 (State Vs. Abhinandan & others), arising out of Case Crime No.198 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged on 24.03.2015 by opposite party no.2 against the applicant and two others under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B I.P.C. Initially the applicant was appointed as Class-IV employee in the Institution on 25.06.1977 which was up to Junior High School, subsequently it was upgraded to High School in the year 1978. Under Chapter II Regulation 4 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which provides that those employees who had been working in the Junior High School they would be absorbed under the aforesaid regulation on the sanctioned post. In view of the aforesaid provision the applicant was absorbed on the post of Class-IV employee, vide order dated 26.07.1977 passed by District Inspector of Schools, which has been sanctioned by Deputy Director of Education vide letter dated 31.01.1979. Since 1984 the applicant has been continuously working on the said post and also received salary from State Exchequer, but after May, 2013 the salary of the applicant had not been paid and the salary of the applicant for the month of March to May 2013 had been deposited in the joint account of the Manager and the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria. The applicant made a representation before District Inspector of Schools, Deoria as well as Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Deoria. In response to the said representation, the Finance and Accounts Offier wrote a letter to District Inspector of Schools, Deoria on 30.10.2013 that the salary of the applicant had not been released on the ground that the Committee of Manager is demanding approval order to the appointment of the applicant made in the year 1977. Copy of letter is annexed as Annexure 5 to the affidavit. Aggrieved against the same, the applicant approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33846 of 2017 in which the respondent authority was directed to file counter affidavit. The opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR against applicant and two other accused persons regarding appointment of the applicant with false and frivolous allegations. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and two other co-accused persons. Cognizance has been taken on 17.04.2019 and criminal proceeding has been initiated against the applicant. There is no oral as well as documentary evidence to prove prima facie case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B I.P.C. against the applicant. It is further submitted that the court below, without applying his judicial mind, has summoned the applicant in casual manner.
The present case is an abuse of process of court and law. It is lastly submitted that the Apex Court has already held that summoning order of the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law applicable on the subject. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the this Court in the case of A.B. Godrej & Another Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Etawah and others p(Application U/S 482 No. 2108 of 2013, decided on 23rd April, 2019 and Ram Nagina Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. (Application U/S 482 No. 5381 of 2002, decided on 30th July, 2019). Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, 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 applicants' 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 A.G.A. has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of the Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in 2019 AIR (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in 2019 Supreme (SC) 1152.
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 (i) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430, (ii) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (iii) 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 applicants' 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.
However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application on the same day, if possible, keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). It is also provided that if the applicant moves an application for discharge before the Court below within a week from today along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within a period of seven weeks from the date making of discharge application.
For a period of two months from today, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid criminal case.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Anand Sri./-