Allahabad High Court
Rama Shanker Pandey vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 4 May, 2022
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4733 of 2014 Applicant :- Rama Shanker Pandey Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shikha Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
This application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 23.06.2014 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2018 of 2014 (State Vs. Rama Shanker Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was taking care of one Babu Ram, who was unmarried and residing with the applicant, due to which, Babu Ram, on his own free will, executed a registered Will Deed in favour of the applicant on 18.03.2010 in the office of Deputy Registrar, Sultanpur. It is further submitted that after death of Babu Ram on 16.04.2010, the last rituals were also conducted by the applicant. Thereafter, mutation was requested on the basis of registered Will Deed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that complainant of the present case along with other family members, filed a suit for cancellation bearing No. 187 of 2011 (Chandrika Prasad & Ors. Vs. Rama Shanker) in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faizabad on 06.05.2011. (Plaint of the aforesaid suit is annexed as Annexure 7). It is also submitted that Chandrika Prasad, Plaintiff no. 1 of the aforesaid suit also moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Sultanpur for lodging of F.I.R., on which, report was sought from the concerned police station. Later on, the said application of the Chandrika Prasad was rejected vide order dated 31.03.2011 by A.C.J.M., Court No. 21. Against the said order, Criminal Revision No. 191 of 2011 was filed by Chandrika Prasad before Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, which was also dismissed after hearing the parties vide order dated 5th March, 2013. The aforesaid revisional order attained finality. It is also submitted that thereafter, plaintiff no. 5-Raj Kapoor in Suit No. 187 of 2011 (supra) filed another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of ACJM III, Faizabad on 05.09.2013, concealing the fact that with the same allegation, earlier application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by Plaintiff No. 1-Chandrika Prasad had already been rejected vide order dated 31.03.2011 as well as revision filed against the order was also dismissed. The fact that Suit No. 187 of 2011 for cancellation of sale deed was also filed, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 28.05.2011, was also not disclosed by the complainant herein. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in mechanical manner and filed the impugned charge sheet without recording the statement of officers working in the office of Deputy Registrar, Sadar, Sultanpur, where the Will Deed was executed. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer also ignored the provisions of Para 107 of U.P. Police Regulations and submitted the charge sheet with the observation that the date of death of Babu Ram was 26.12.2009. Drawing the attention of the Court towards Annexure 8, which is an account in the post office situated at village Khetpaliya, Post Miyanganj, District Faizabad bearing R.D. Account No. 913804 opened by Babu Ram on 12.03.2010, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the death certificate relied by the applicant is not genuine, but the Investigating Officer also failed to consider this fact and filed the impugned charge sheet in mechanical manner, on which, the court below has taken cognizance.
Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Prantiya Sinchai Avam Bandh Yogana Shramik Mahaparishad, 2008 (1) ALJ 51, Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 976 and Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 942, learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned proceedings have been initiated by the complainant as a weapon of harassment against the applicant, as the suit for cancellation of the sale deed had already been dismissed, as also one application moved earlier under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by one of the plaintiff, namely, Chandrika Prasad was also rejected, against which, a revision was filed, which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that all these facts were not mentioned in the subsequent application moved by plaintiff no. 5 Raj Kapoor/complainant of the present case. It is, thus, submitted that indulgence of this Court is necessary and the charge sheet as well as entire proceedings are liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. submits that during the course of investigation, it was found that date of death of the Babu Ram was 26.12.2009 and the charge sheet has rightly been filed by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that applicant may appear before the court below and apprise all the facts at the appropriate stage. It is also submitted that the evidences collected by the Investigating Officer cannot be evaluated in the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the fact that earlier application moved by one of the plaintiff-Chandrika Prasad under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as well as suit filed for cancellation of sale deed, as also the revision have already been dismissed. He also does not dispute the fact that in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by another plaintiff of Suit No. 187 of 2011, Raj Kapoor-complainant of the present F.I.R., the aforesaid facts were not disclosed.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, contents of the sale deed executed by Babu Ram as well as order passed, as also the plaint of Suit No. 187 of 2011 on 06.05.2011 and other relevant documents, it is very much clear that earlier an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by Chandrika Prasad, which was rejected by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur on 31.03.2011. It is further evident that the aforesaid order was challenged before the revisional court in the Criminal Revision No. 191 of 2011 (Chandrika Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was also dismissed by ACJM, Court No. 21 vide order dated 31.03.2011 and the said order attained finality. It is also evident that suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the complainant along with other associates was also dismissed on 28.05.2013. Thereafter, complainant of the present case-Raj Kapoor, who was also one of the plaintiff, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of ACJM, III, Faizabad with the same verbatim, which were mentioned earlier by Chandrika Prasad in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Sultanpur. In Case Crime No. 268 of 2013, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer.
Admittedly, the Investigating Officer, while filing the charge sheet, has not considered the fact that earlier a suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed by the complainant along with other associates including the Chandrika Prasad, which was dismissed on 28.05.2011 by the competent court. Thereafter, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant of the present case concealing all these facts, on which, Case Crime No. 268 of 2013 (supra) was lodged. It is also evident that one registered Will Deed is existing in favour of the applicant and, therefore, the factum that complainant is trying to make pressure by abusing the process of law, cannot be denied. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Prantiya Sinchai Avam Bandh Yogana Shramik Mahaparishad, Mitesh Kumar J. Sha and Randheer Singh (supra), has already observed that the criminal proceedings initiated only with the intention to settle the civil dispute, are not permissible.
In view of above facts and discussions, the application stands allowed.
Charge sheet dated 23.06.2014 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2018 of 2014 (State Vs. Rama Shanker Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad are hereby quashed.
Consequences to follow.
Order Date :- 4.5.2022 VKS