Allahabad High Court
Pavan Gaur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 August, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12458 of 2022 Applicant :- Pavan Gaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Second supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Anshul Kumar Singhal, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet dated 17.12.2019, submitted in Case Crime No.0819 of 2018,under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station - Phase-II, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 11.2.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar in Criminal Case No.843 of 2020 (State vs. Pavan Gaur), under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station - Phase-II, District - Gautam Buddh Nagr as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned case now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in the First Information Report are false and concocted. It is then submitted that applicant was the Chief Executive Officer of M/s Schneider Prototyping India Pvt. Ltd. and resigned from the company on 31.3.2017. Various disputes have arisen between applicant and the company also of other persons with the company as it is evident from the chart mentioned in paragraph 32 of the affidavit. He, therefore, submits that present criminal proceedings have been initiated as a counter blast to the criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant and others against the company. It is lastly contended that there was no intention on the part of applicant right from the inception to cheat the company. As such, present criminal proceedings are nothing butan abuse of process of law and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court. It is also contended by learned counsel for applicant that neither formal F.I.R. was registered against the applicant nor the statement of first informant was recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation of above mentioned case crime number under Chapter XII Cr.P.C.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State submits that after receipt of information from the Indian Embassy in Germany, criminal proceedings commenced against the applicant. The said information was treated as an First Information Report as is also admitted to the applicant himself. On the basis of above, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation in terms of Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined various witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of first informant namely Dr. Henri Jacques Tops was also taken on record though it was not orally recorded. On the basis of statement of witnesses so examined, which is substantially adverse to the applicant and other material collected by Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet dated 17.12.2019. In the charge-sheet so submitted as many as eight prosecution witnesses have been nominated. As such, it cannot be said at this stage that prosecution case is false or there is evidence to support the prosecution of applicant.
It is then submitted that the issue as to whether any entrustment was made in favour of applicant or there was no intention on the part of applicant to cheat the first informant from very inception are questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The said questions being factual in nature can be dealt with more appropriately only during the course of trial. It is lastly contended that charge-sheet is the outcome of investigation. No such defect or illegality could be pointed out in the investigation on the basis of which it can be concluded that the charge-sheet is tainted. Since no defect in investigation could not be pointed out the resultant charge-sheet cannot be quashed.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record as well as submissions and counter submission on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022 Rishabh