Allahabad High Court
Smt. Pooja Sharma And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 December, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43847 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Pooja Sharma And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bashishth Narayan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Bashishth Narayan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Case No.397/9 of 2018, the cognizance order dated 18.9.2018 as well as the charge sheet no.01 of 2018 dated 9.6.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2018 (State vs. Smt. Pooja and others) under sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC, P.S. Shamli, District Shamli, pending before the CJM, Shamli and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party has falsely implicated the applicants. A Society in the name of Mahila Prashikshan Sansthan was constituted of which applicant no. 1 was the President and accused-applicant nos. 2 to 4 were members. The opposite party no. 2 was engaged on the post of Coordinator and was supplied some raw material for manufacturing detergent but did not provide any prepared detergent and because of this reason, she has falsely implicated the accused-applicants. She has also filed an affidavit before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shamli on 28.6.2018 copy of which is annexed at page 46 of the paper book, to the effect that she has now compromised the matter and does not want to contest the case, hence proceedings need to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
I have gone through the FIR. It is recorded in it that the applicant no. 1 disclosed herself to be the President of Mahila Prashikshan Sansthan and asked the opposite party no. 2 to work on the post of District Coordinator at the salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and on this pretext, she had taken an amount of Rs.one lac from opposite party no. 2 and her son was also posted on the post of Secretary. For this purpose, she had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant no. 1 and it was assured that her son Ashwani would be paid Rs.20,000/- per month as salary. He had got salary only for five months that too at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month only and it was stated by the applicant no. 1 that rest of the salary would be given to him at the end of the year but not a single penny was paid. Thereafter the accused applicant no. 3 Amardeep @ Sonu and accused-applicant no. 2 Kuideep Pandit disclosing themselves to be Incharge, Media came along with accused-applicant no.1 and told the opposite party no. 2 and stated that their organization would provide job to the ladies of weaker sections and also stated that Rs.500/- would be taken as registration fees and in this manner huge amount i.e. a sum of Rs.80.00 crores is said to have been cheated in four States namely U.P., Haryana, Delhi and Uttrakhand.
After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer after having recorded statements of as many as seven witnesses, the veracity of the said witnesses cannot be tested in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that cognizable offence is not made out against the accused-applicant.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.12.2019 AU