Allahabad High Court
Rajaram Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 17 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 980
Author: Harsh Kumar
Bench: Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4045 of 2020 Applicant :- Rajaram Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Case No.396/9 of 2019 "Computer Case No.1276 of 2019" (State Vs. Rajaram Sharma) arising out of Case Crime No.813 of 2018, under sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Brindavan, District Mathura, Charge sheet dated 24.10.2018 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura and cognizance order dated 27.3.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated; that the real fact is that opposite party no.2 given a cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- to applicant on 12.4.2018, which was dishonoured, so the applicant filed a complaint case against opposite party no.2 under section 138 N.I. Act, copy at Annexure No.2; that feeling annoyed with the filing of complaint against opposite party no.2, he lodged a false F.I.R. against applicant with concocted story of alleged transactions about sale of a plot through co-accused Rakesh Rajora; that as per averments made in F.I.R. a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was credited to the account of applicant from the account of Pankaj Sharma, the friend of opposite party no.2; that above amount was given by applicant to co-accused Rakesh Rajora and the applicant had no concern; that applicant has also filed another complaint against Rakesh Rajora under section 138 N.I. Act, copy filed at Annexure No.2; that there was no privity of contract between applicant and opposite party no.2; that F.I.R. has been lodged as a matter of counter blast; that co-accused Rakesh Rajora was charge sheeted much earlier, while the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant in October, 2018, upon which Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance without due application of mind; that it is not disputed that amount has been credited to the account of applicant.
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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which require evidence and cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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, and the applicant has failed to prove any prima facie case.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or likelihood of miscarriage of justice for prevention of which the exercise of inherent powers by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed accordingly.
However, if the applicant appears before the court below and moves application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.3.2020 Tamang