HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 45660 of 2019
Applicant :- Ramlakhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajjan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Rajjan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 286 of 2017, arising out of case crime no. 282 of 2016, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sikandara, District Rambai Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Kanpur Dehat as well as impugned charge sheet dated 13.11.2016 submitted by the police in case crime no. 282 of 2016, under Section 406 IPC.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2. A false allegation has been levelled against him that he had taken Rs. 1,00,000/- from opposite party no. 2 in order to provide him a job and subsequently the said job could not be provided nor the said amount was returned. She came to know that he was a person, who used to play fraud upon others also and a large number of cases have been mentioned in which people have been cheated by him as he had taken from them Rs. 12,000/- each in order to provide them loan for the purchase of the she-buffalo and goats etc. It is further argued that no such demand was ever made and the charge sheet has been erroneously submitted by the investigating officer, which needs to be quashed. Date, time and place of the occurrence has also not been mentioned in the F.I.R.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of quashing.
I have gone through the F.I.R. and find that pursuant to the investigation, charge sheet has been submitted by the investigating officer after having recorded statements of as many as 11 witnesses, whose testimony cannot be tested in proceedings u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. as the same would require trial.
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 SectionCr.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 SectionR. 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, 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 is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.12.2019