Allahabad High Court
Mohit Varshneya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 July, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6604 of 2020 Applicant :- Mohit Varshneya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Vardhan Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Aditya Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the victim, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet no. 209A dated 15.12.2018 and cognizance order dated 06.04.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Special Case No. Nil, (State vs. Mool Chand Varshaney and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 184 of 2016 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 120B IPC, P.S. Sambhal Kotwali, District Sambhal pending before the Court of Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, Court No.2 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bareilly and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
As per FIR, the co-accused Dr. Smt. Archana is stated to have shown the accused of Case Crime No. 293 of 2015 namely Mohit Varshaney admitted at Samudaik Swastha Kendra, Sambhal between 19.5.2015 to 6.6.2015 on the basis of false/fake document in order to give benefit to the said accused.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated only because he is beneficiary in the present case in which it is being stated that Dr. Archana who is the main accused had shown him admitted in Samudaik Swastha Kendra Sambhal from 19.5.2015 to 6.6.2015 on the basis of false document. There is no evidence against him. It is further argued that the applicant has been implicated only because his father Mool Varshaney had lodged a complaint case no. 12148 of 2015 Mool Varshanedy vs. Rajbir Singh and others in which the main allegation was that the said complainant was being harassed by Rajbir Singh and others. There is no concrete evidence against the accused-applicant on record, yet the Investigating Officer, after investigation has submitted charge sheet against him. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in case crime no. 293 of 2015 before trial court it was argued that the accused-applicant had taken the benefit of being hospitalized on the basis of false document from 9.5.2015 to 6.6.2015 but the trial court has given finding that this argument is not a valid argument and discarded the same. If proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to an abuse of process of court, therefore, charge-sheet needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for victim have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet stating that the accused-applicant is the main beneficiary in the present case because he has shown himself admitted in Samudaik Swastha Kendra, Sambhal between 19.5.2015 to 6.6.2015 on the basis of false document. There is considerable evidence against the applicant and it cannot be said that he was not involved in the present case.
Looking to the fact that after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer after having recorded statements of as many as 12 witnesses and the veracity of the said witnesses cannot be tested in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C., same is required full trial, this is not being found a good case for quashing the proceedings.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
The applicant shall appear before the court below within 30 days from today and may move an application for bail. If such an application is moved within the said time limit, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law. For a period of 30 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the accused-applicant in the aforesaid case. But if the accused-applicant does not appear before the court below, the court below shall take coercive steps to procure his attendance.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.7.2020 AU