This court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings based on Sections 419, 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held the FIR and charge sheet prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and the explanation for delay was insufficient.
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. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20201 of 2021
Applicant :- Rita Singh And Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Purushottam Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
By way of filing present Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., applicants prays for quashing the impugned order dated 2.3.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, whereby he has taken cognizance and summon the applicant for facing trial under Sections 419, 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC and 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, arising out of case crime No. 773 of 2017, P.S. Cant, Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur and entire proceeding of criminal case No. 2831 of 2019, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that almost in respect of same allegation earlier complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) was filed against the applicants in which applicants have been summoned and trial of the same is still pending. He submitted that on the basis of false allegation, FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant in the year 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 504,506 IPC and Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that without any proper investigation, alongwith the provisions of Indian Penal Code, charge sheet in the present case was also filed under Section 138 of the Act which is not permissible as offence under section 138 of the Act is a non cognizable offence and the proceeding under which cannot be initiated on the basis of charge sheet. He further submitted that the case is of mainly accounting dispute and in this regard, some of the amount has already been given by the applicants to opposite party No. 2 but inspite of that, only with malafide intention after three years of incident, the FIR of the present case has been lodged. Therefore, the entire proceedings as well as impugned charge sheet dated 5.12.2018 is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned AGA submitted that FIR, prima facie, discloses cognizable offence and intention of the applicant since beginning was to cheat the opposite party No. 2 is apparent even from the perusal of the FIR. He further submitted that merely by addition of Section 138 of the Act, entire charge sheet filed under Sections 419, 420, 406, 504,506 IPC could not be quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
Perusal of the FIR, prima facie, discloses offence under Sections 419, 420, 406, 504,506 IPC against the applicants and as far as the argument of the applicants that for offence under Section 138 of the Act cognizance on the basis of charge sheet is not be taken is concerned, the impugned charge sheet has also been filed under the offences relate to Indian Penal Code which were cognizable offences. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charge sheet is bad. Further, charge sheet was filed in the year 2018 and applicant knocked the door of this Court only in the year 2021 i.e. after about 3 years. As far as the delay in filing the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, although, it has been explained by the applicant in para-26 of the affidavit filed alongwith this application but explanation is not sufficient to accept the delay as the reasons explained in para-26 appears to be incorrect and is not acceptable. As FIR and other evidence on record, prima facie, discloses cognizable offence against the applicant, therefore, at this stage, no interference is required.
Accordingly present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is, hereby, rejected .
Order Date :- 16.5.2022 Ankita
Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.18 13:26:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should quash the quashing application and the charge sheet in view of the nature of allegations and delay in filing the application.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rita Singh and Others
State of U.P.
Another
Sameer Jain
Ankita Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
