Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rinki Singh vs State Of Up And Another on 15 July, 2019
Author: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24180 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Rinki Singh Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the entire proceedings and the charge sheet dated 23.11.2015 including the cognizance order dated 08.9.2016 in Case No. 1942 of 2018, State vs. Rinki Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.- Bairia, District- Ballia, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Ballia.
Heard applicant's counsel and learned AGA.
Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the matter is essentially civil nature and criminal proceeding should be allowed in this case. Further submission is that if at all fraud has been committed it has been committed against the Allahabad Bank and that is why it should have been the complainant of the case. It was also submitted that the accused did not conceal the fact that they have already taken loan from another bank. Submission is that in such circumstances offence as alleged by the complainant is not made out. Several other contentions have also been raised by the applicant's counsel but all of them relate to disputed questions of fact. The court 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 AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 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 AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 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 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 record of the present case shows that the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged by the opposite party no.2 who is a manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bairia Branch, District Ballia on 12.3.2015 against the applicant. The allegation as contained in the F.I.R. is that the applicant, who was the proprietor of M/s. Vijay Construction had taken loan of Rs. 25lakh on 18.10.2011 and for that purpose, she had got mortgaged her immovable property Arazi No. 76/5 area 0.009 hectare situated in mauja Harpur Mahal Khud, pargana and district- Ballia and the original sale deed of the aforesaid land was also deposited with the said bank. Later on the company of the applicant failed to deposit the installments of loan and ultimately the said account was declared by the bank as NPA and the proceedings of SARFAESI Act were initiated by the bank against the applicant to recover the loan amount. At that time it has come to the knowledge of the opposite party no. 2/bank concerned that by mortgaging the same property, the applicant had also taken house loan of Rs. 11lakh from Allahabad Bank, Bairia Branch, Ballia. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that in this regard authority of Allahabad Bank, Bairia Branch, Ballia had written a letter dated 31.3.2014 to the opposite party no. 2. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that the opposite party no. 2 had cheated and had committed fraud with both the banks and had misappropriated the entire loan amount. The investigating Officer investigated the case and recorded the statement of the opposite party no. 2 and other bank employees who had fully supported the prosecution version. The Investigating Officer after conducting full fledged and fair investigation on the basis of statement of the witnesses as well as on the basis of perusal of other documents, found that the applicant had committed offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and therefore, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections has been filed against them. Learned Magistrate after perusing the documents including the case diary had taken cognizance vide order dated 08.9.2016.
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 applicant 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 same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.7.2019 Naresh