The High Court dismissed an application quashing a criminal proceeding. The Court upheld the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order treating a Section 156(3) application as a complaint, citing the need for police investigation to prove forgery allegations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11553 of 2019
Applicant :- Indra Prasad Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Vaish,Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Gupta
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party nos.3 to 6, Smt. Alpana Singha, learned A.G.A. assisted by Smt. Ruchi Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent and perused the record.
By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought quashment of the proceeding in Misc. Case No.2537 of 2018 Indra Prasad Gupta Vs. Gunjan Gupta and others, as well as the order dated 17.01.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr whereby the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as complaint.
In this case, obviously it cannot be said that only remedy available is to initiate the proceeding at the instance of the police report and cognizance may be taken under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. that is upon presentation of the police report. In this case, it so happened that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant which was treated as complaint. Then the grievance of the applicant is that in this case, facts involved need extensive scrutiny/investigation by the police and in absence of any such scrutiny, proper verdict cannot be pronounced by the court below and it would be beyond capacity of the applicant to prove fraud committed by opposite party nos.2 to 6.
Point involved in this case is that the allegations of fraud have been levelled specifically against opposite party no.3, daughterin-law of the applicant in the complaint stating therein that she obtained employment in the education department by manipulating certain papers which is forgery and the government job cannot be given to such a person who has prepared the forged papers for obtaining the government job.
Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.3 to 6 has submitted that the entire facts have been brought to the notice of not only one authority but also a number of authorities concerned, and in modern times, the electronic gazettes are
available. To say that the applicant has raised genuine claim is absolutely denied. The claim of the applicant is outcome of illwill because opposite party no.3, daughter-in-law of the applicant is not on good terms with son of the applicant. The dispute raised between two families - say the applicant and opposite party no.3. This itself has background of false application being moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. still opposite party no.3 and others are ready to show hollowness of the complaint with ulterior motive. Whatever allegations have been made in the complaint are specific within knowledge of the applicant and it is up to the applicant to emphasis the claim to the same and prove these aspects as elaborated in the complaint. The complaint itself is outcome of ill-will and malice and the same is not tenable in the eye of law and this can be proved by the answering respondents provided the liberty is given to them.
Learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order.
Considered the rival submissions.
In the case, bare perusal of the entire record reflects that certain allegations have been made regarding forgery committed by opposite party nos.2 to 6 which element of fraud, the applicant is required to prove in order to establish its case. To say the police report is must in this case would not serve the purpose. If public office has been usurped by opposite party no.3 then averments are open to the applicant to agitate as such for the time being, the prosecution of opposite party no.3 is available to the applicant by following the procedure of the complaint. The Magistrate has rightly treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint by the impugned order dated 17.01.2019 which needs no interference by this Court.
Consequently, the instant application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.5.2019 rkg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. treated as a complaint can be quashed despite allegations of fraud.
Indra Prasad Gupta
State Of U.P.
Gunjan Gupta
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
