Allahabad High Court
Nitin Goyal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 45 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18530 of 2022 Applicant :- Nitin Goyal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
This criminal misc. application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no.11345 of 2021 (State vs. Nitin Goyal) arising out of case crime no.679 of 2021 under sections 420, 352, 504, 506, 120B IPC, P.S. Hapur City, District Hapur as well as quash the charge-sheet No.683 of 2021 dated 15.10.2021 and the cognizance order dated 02.12.2021 passed in the aforesaid complaint case.
The opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR registered as crime no.679 of 2021 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 352, 504, 506 & 120-B IPC. According to FIR the complainant has passed NIELIT examination and the certificate issued to him, his mother's name was wrongly written then complainant approached the applicant-accused Nitin Goyal for making correction in the certificate but he in collusion with the co-accused Munawwar, he forged the certificate and himself corrected the name of mother and provided it to the applicant. The complainant on the basis of the aforesaid certificate applied for the post of VDO, he was selected, after the verification, the certificate was found to be forged and he was terminated on that basis. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 420, 352, 504, 506 & 120B IPC.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Applicant has no authority to rectify the mistake in the CCC certificate issued by SMD Institute of Information Technology, Bulandshahr. He is an employee of Z Net Computer Education Center and working for the same and has nothing to do with the correction of CCC certificate of opposite party no.2. He has been falsely implicated. Actually the applicant is working with Z Net Computer Education Center at Hapur and the opposite party no.2 has taken admission for CCC at SMD Institute of Information Technology, Bulandshahr. After termination, the opposite party no.2 filed a Writ-A No.2871 of 2021 assailing the termination order which is still pending for termination. In this petition, it has been admitted by the opposite party no.2 that as soon as he came to know about the incorrect transcription of his mother's name then he approached to SMD Institute of Information Technology, Bulandshahr and also made a representation before the Director NIELIT, New Delhi for requisite correction. He has also admitted that he has taken admission at SMD Institute of Information Technology, Bulandshahr and not at Z Net Institute. The FIR has been lodged after delay of six months. There is no evidence against the applicant except the oral allegations that after taking money, applicant himself has corrected the CCC certificate.
Learned AGA contended that the allegations of the FIR clearly discloses a cognizable offence. On the basis of credible evidence, charge-sheet has been submitted and the learned Magistrate being satisfied with it has taken cognizance on it. There is no sufficient ground to quash the proceedings.
In the FIR there are clear and specific allegations against the applicant. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of complainant and other relevant witnesses and on the basis of material collected during investigation and finding that there is sufficient evidence has submitted charge-sheet in appropriate section. It is settled principle of law that at this Stage only prima-facie case is to be seen as propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. All other arguments as assailed by the learned counsel for the applicant are all matter of trial which cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to show that the FIR has been lodged with a malicious intention and the continuation of proceeding is an abuse of the process of law or court. There is no sufficient ground to exercise the powers U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that direction be issued for expeditious disposal of bail application in view of guidelines propounded in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors, reported in 202 (4) Crimes 139 (SC) case.
However considering the rival submissions of the parties, if applicant move bail application before the court concerned, it shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with settled principle of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court.
Order Date :- 1.7.2022 /C. MANI