Dismissed

R.D. Sharma @ Rishi Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2020A482/5729/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of a charge sheet alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Single Judge refused the prayer, holding that disputed questions of fact and worthiness of evidence must be adjudicated by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge sheet and proceedings was refused as no merit was found.

R.D. Sharma @ Rishi Dutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5729 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- R.D. Sharma @ Rishi Dutt Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary,Neeraj Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 22.05.2014 (State Vs. R.D. Sharma @ Rishi Dutt Sharma) arising out of Case Crime No. 219 of 2014, under Sections 406, 420, 352 I.P.C., Police Station- Qila, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VIII, Bareilly.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that present F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no.2, namely, Ishwari Prasad against R.D. Sharma (applicant herein) with the allegations that on 15.05.2013, there was an agreement between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2, in which, demolition of old building and construction of one floor over the same, for which, Rs. 5,00,000/- was given by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2. The said construction was done by the opposite party no. 2 according to agreement. Thereafter, applicant gave a contract to the opposite party no. 2 for construction of second floor, which was also done by the opposite party no. 2, but the amount of the construction of the second floor has not been paid by the applicant to opposite party no. 2. When the opposite party no. 2 demanded his money, then the applicant replied that he would pay the same after one month. Subsequently, opposite party no. 2 demanded his money again after one month, applicant denied to give his money and after threatening he attacked on him.

¶8

It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after conducting statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Police has submitted a charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections against the applicant. The present first information report has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations to harass the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. He further states that the applicant is innocent and the inquiry has been conducted in

¶10

a biased manner. Therefore, he submits that the entire prosecution of the criminal case are liable to be quashed.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant by stating that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. Learned A.G.A. has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019 .

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

¶13

This Court finds that the court below has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

¶14

The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.

¶15

Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

¶16

The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.)

¶17

426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 1976 3 SCC 736 . The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.

¶18

Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

¶19

The submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins.

¶20

A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶21

The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet or the proceedings is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.

¶22

The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.1.2020/Priya

R.D. Sharma @ Rishi Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.D. Sharma @ Rishi Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Narain Shukla @ (Neeraj Shukla) Vs Special Chief Judicial and Another

Pawan Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Singh @ Anni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deshraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another