Allahabad High Court
Priya Ahuja And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 11 May, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved on 11.2.2022 Delivered on 11.5.2022 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3224 of 2019 Applicant :- Priya Ahuja And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava,Rajiv Raman Srivastava,Shwetank Sailakwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Amrendra Singh, Armendra Pratap Singh , Diwakar Singh , Pankaj Bala Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amrendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet no. 106/2018 dated 28.2.2018 as well as summoning order dated 30.5.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur and staying the further proceedings of criminal case no. 2106 of 2018 in case crime no. 553 of 2015 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Sitapur pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur.
3. Brief facts of the case is that first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2, namely, Pradeep Anand on 18.9.2015 as case crime no. 553 of 2015 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and during investigation Section 120-B I.P.C. is also added. Prosecution story as such is that the opposite party no. 2/complainant is the manager of the Sunbeam Educational Society (hereinafter referred to as the "Society") and there are two schools, which were running by the management. One is situated at Loharbagh, Sitapur and one is situated in Village-Tedwa Chilaula, District- Sitapur.
4. On 11.4.2015 Raman Sahni and Peshwari Lal Sahni came to the school of the complainant and started beating and abusing complainant- Pradeep Anand. They had also given threatening for leaving the post of Manager and about that the opposite party no. 2/complainant earlier lodged an F.I.R. and it is alleged that the sister of Ram Sahni, namely, Monika Anand was eager to remove him from the post of Manager and for that purpose Monika Anand hatched a conspiracy with the help of other co-accused persons and made forged signatures of the opposite party no. 2-complainant. With the help of forged signatures, Monika Anand prepared forged records, which indicates that he wanted voluntarily retirement from the post of Manager of the Society and thus removed the opposite party no. 2/complainant from the post of Manager and made Kunal Anand as a new Manager of the school. Thus, by doing such type of act Monika Anand has got right on the whole property of the Society by doing fraud and also damaged a lot of against management.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted before the Court that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has willingly given his resignation from the post of Manager of the school on 12.4.2014. Monika Anand, who is wife of the opposite party no. 2/complainant, filed both the papers i.e. resignation letter dated 12.4.2014 and affidavit dated 12.5.2015 before Deputy Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Lucknow (in short "Deputy Registrar, Societies"). The Deputy Registrar, Societies passed an order dated 11.6.2015 and 5.8.2015 by approving the list of members.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that meanwhile the prestigious persons of the society interfered in the dispute between the opposite party no. 2/Pradeep Anand (husband) and Monika Anand (wife). On 9.9.2015 the opposite party no. 2 filed his objection before the Deputy Registrar, Societies and alleged that the applicants fraudulently made his signatures of resignation and also prepared a forged affidavit and made himself Manager of the Society. Meantime, on the application of the complainant/opposite party no. 2, the Deputy Registrar, Societies got verified from a handwriting expert the forged signatures of the complainant on resignation letter and affidavit. Thus, the Deputy Registrar, Societies recalled its earlier order dated 11.6.2015 and 5.8.2015 and restored the erstwhile society by means of order dated 20.2.2016.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that order dated 20.2.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Societies was also challenged by Monika Anand and applicant no. 1 in Writ Petition No. 4294 (M/S) of 2016, which has been finally disposed of on 3.3.2016 with the direction to the Deputy Registrar, Societies to decide the matter within two months after providing opportunity to the parties. The Deputy Registrar, Societies has passed the order dated 16.6.2016 after hearing both the parties to the extent of recognizing co-accused (Kunal Anand) as the Manager of the society, namely, Sunbeam Educational Society.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that being aggrieved with the order dated 16.6.2016, the opposite party no. 2/complainant filed a Writ Petition No. 14923 (M/S) of 2016 before this Court, in which the petitioner no. 1 and Monika Anand appeared as respondent nos. 3 and 4. This writ petition was sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. He further submitted that in fact Pradeep Anand is the husband of Smt. Monika Anand and father of Kunal Anand and the applicants are in-laws of the complainant. It is totally a family dispute, as the dispute related the post of Manager of the Society is between husband, wife and son and at the same time, the petitioners are only in-laws of the complainant and due to member of the society, they have been falsely implicated. The applicants were only members of the erstwhile Society as well as newly constituted society. The applicants have no concern with the day to day affairs of the society. Therefore, the applicants have not committed any offence.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier co-accused- Raman Sahni approached before this Court by moving Application under Sections 482/378/407 No. 7423 of 2018 in which this Court directed him to move discharge application. His discharge applicant was dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. Being aggrieved with the order dated 18.12.2018, co-accused- Raman Sahni again approached before this Court by moving Application under Sections 482/378/407 No. 1418 of 2019 and this Court vide order dated 25.2.2019 directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till the next date of listing.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted before the Court that ultimately Application under Sections 482/378/407 No. 1418 of 2019 was finally decided on 3.2.2020 and being aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2020 co-accused- Raman Sahni approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No (s) 1860 of 2020 in which following order was passed:-
" Issue notice.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed."
11. Learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the applicants have no concern in preparation of the forged signatures of the opposite party no. 2 and the applicants had not colluded with other co-accused persons for preparation of any documents. They are only members of the Sunbeam Educational Society, therefore, no disclosed offence is made out against the applicant. The who prosecution is an abuse of the process of law and therefore, the prayed to quash the proceedings against the applicants.
12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that all the forged papers were submitted before the Deputy Registrar, Societies after giving all necessary information to the applicants. The applicants had put their signatures for the resolution. He further submitted that Forensic Lab, Mahanagar had submitted its report on 3.10.2016 and arrived at conclusion that the forged signatures was found on resignation letter as well as affidavit. He further submitted that mediation offerend by the Monika Anand was only tactics to ligner on the matter, as she never cooperated in the proceedings and therefore, the matter was sent for decision on merits. By hatching conspiracy, Monika Anand made forged signatures on resignation letter and affidavit of opposite party no. 2-Pradeep Anand to ousted him from the post of Manager. He further submitted that ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicants is misconceived and submitted that Investigating Officer after through investigation filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate, after applying his judicial mind, took the cognizance and summoned the applicants for trial. There is no illegality, irregularity and perversity in the summoning and issuing non bailable warrant against the applicants. Thus, the present petition is liable to be rejected.
13. On perusal of the entire record, it transpires that on the basis of resignation letter of the opposite party no.2/complainant- Pradeep Anand put their signatures in the resolution and on the basis of which Kunal Anand was appointed as a Manager of Sunbeam Educational Society. Now, the question arises that whether the applicants has prior knowledge about the forged signature or not, as the applicants are only members of the society and they have not gained any beneficial interest by forgery. The prior knowledge of forged signatures is only question of fact and which may be decided after detailed hearing at the time of framing of charge before the trial court.
14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this application is finally disposed of with a direction that the applicants may move discharge application.
15. So far as quashing of charge sheet and entire proceedings is concerned, from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. All the submission made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant and all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. The prayer for quashing the proceedings, charge sheet and summoning order is refused.
17. So far as regard the cognizance and summoning order passed by the learned trial court concerned, at the stage of taking cognizance, trial court can simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit for taking and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case, learned trial court clearly expressed his opinion that he perused all the record and clearly indicated that the material placed before him is sufficient to proceed the case. Thus, the cognizance order is not a proforma order. Every aspect is touched by learned trial court and appellant failed to adduce any evidence which caused prejudiced to him. So, the cognizance and summoning order is perfectly valid and there is no occasion to quash the same.
18. The disputed defence of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, which is already refused. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
19. As requested, the petitioner is permitted to appear before the concerned court within fifteen days from today through counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today, which shall not exceed.
20. No coercive measure shall be adopted against the petitioner for a period of two months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.
21. If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
22. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.5. 2022 Anuj Singh