In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant challenged the dismissal of their discharge application, alleging false implication. The High Court declined to quash the order, holding that tampering with Form No. 29/30 indicated a cognizable offence and that evidence could not be scrutinized at this stage.
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. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24845 of 2019
Applicant :- Nausahd And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A. D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. IInd Amroha in Criminal Case No. 3806 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 288 of 2016, under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Amroha Dehat, District- J.P. Nagar (Amroha), State vs. Shanavaj and others, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., IInd J.P. Nagar (Amroha), and a prayer is also made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The application for discharge has been wrongly dismissed.
As per the F.I.R., opposite party no. 2 had sold his vehicle in favour of accused-applicant no. 1 and all the papers pertaining to the sale of the said vehicle including Form No. 29/30, were given to the accused-applicant no. 1, after being signatured and permission was given by him appearing before the R.T.O. for transfer of the said vehicle in favour of the applicant and thereafter, he came back from the R.T.O. office. On 02.09.2015, he went to the R.T.O office to find out why the said vehicle could not be transferred in the name of accused-applicant no. 1, it transpired that on the said Form No. 29/30, name of purchaser was mentioned as Shanavaj (applicant no. 2) and address was also mentioned of his house, because of which the vehicle could not be transferred in the name of accused-applicant no. 1. Thus, it is alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused-applicant had made manipulation in the Form No. 29/30, after the same was executed by him.
After the investigation in this case, charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused-applicants under the above mentioned sections. The discharge application has already been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 14.03.2019. Since
the From No. 29/30 which was filled up by the opposite party no. 2 was subsequently tampered with/ filled up again therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is committed by the accused-applicant and the evidence gathered by Investigating Officer during investigation cannot be scrutinized in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above observation, I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order dated 14.03.2019, by which the discharge application has been rejected. Accordingly the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .
Order Date :- 9.7.2019 V.S.Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the order of the trial court rejecting the discharge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nausahd and Another
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
