Allowed

Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi v. the State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2023/6262/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the chargesheet and summoning order against the applicant. The court held that no witness implicated her and essential elements of offences like breach of trust and conspiracy were not made out against her.

What did the court decide?

The chargesheet, summoning order, and custody warrant issued against the applicant in the underlying case are quashed.

Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi Vs the State of U.P. and Ors. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6262 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tilak Raj Singh, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶6

By means of this application the applicant has sought for quashing of the chargesheet (Annexure-1 to the application) filed against her in Case No. 1531 of 2016, State of U.P. v. S.K. Chaturvedi & ors.) in Case Crime No. 447 of 20015 pending before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh, and congnizance order dated 5.9.2016 (Annexure-2 to the application) wherein the Non-Bailable Warrants has been issued against the applicant.

¶7

The aforesaid case was initiated by means of the first information report lodged on 15th December 2015 under sections 409, 419 and 420 IPC against the applicant and her husband alleging that the applicant's husband co-accused S.K. Chaturvedi was posted as Branch Manager at Kunda Branch of Punjab National Bank during the period 3rd July 2014 to 28th April 2015 and during this period he sanctioned several loans in the name of fake persons and committed several acts of criminal breach of trust; that he granted twenty-five fake loans worth about Rs.94.30 lac rupees to non-existent persons. The FIR further alleges that co-accused SK Chaturvedi enhanced cash credit limit of M/s Singh Automobiles from Rs.8 lakh to 17 lacs and he transferred Rs.9 lacs to the account of one Meenakshi Singh; and that the co-accused S.K. Chaturvedi transferred the amount of fake loan accounts to a current account in the name of M/s OSR Filing Station and the applicant is the authorized signatory of the said current account and she operates the account jointly with the co-accused SK Chaturvedi and on his instructions.

¶8

Upon lodging of the first information report an investigation was carried out and the investigating officer recorded the statements of several persons who had accounts with the Punjab National Bank, Branch-Kunda, and all of whom levelled allegations against the co-accused SK Chaturvedi, but none of whom make a mention of the applicant's name. Copies of the

¶9

statements of sixteen persons recorded by the investigating officer have been a annexed with the affidavit, which substantiated the aforesaid submission of Sri Chakravarty.

¶10

On 3.7.2016 the investigating officer submitted a chargesheet stating that from the investigation and evidence collected the commission of offences under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. is established against the accused persons SK Chaturvedi, Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi (the present applicant), Rahul Jaiswal and Dheerendra Pratap Singh and Suresh Chandra Shukla.

¶11

On 5.9.2016 the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh, passed an order taking cognizance of the case and issuing custody warrant against the applicant and another coaccused person.

¶12

Sri Purnendu Chakaravarty, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that chargesheet has been filed in a mechanical manner stating that from the investigation and evidence collected the commission of offences mentioned in the chargesheet is made out against the applicant, whereas the copies of the statements recorded during investigation annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the application indicates that none of the persons examined by the investigating officer has even mentioned the name of the applicant. The only material which has come against the applicant is that she was signatory of the current account in the name of M/s OSR Filing Station in which her husband co-accused SK Chaturvedi is an account holder.

¶13

Per contra, Sri Rilak Raj Singh, the learned Addl. Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the application and he submitted that as the amounts had been transferred to the account in the name of M/s OSR Filing Station, the applicant being its joint account holder, is a beneficiary of the amount transferred to the said account and, therefore, her complicity in the offence is self-evident. He has further submitted that the applicant has been chargesheeted with the offence under section 120B, I.P.C. also and her being a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime deposited in the bank account being operated by her clearly establish the commission of the aforesaid offence.

¶14

I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, the material available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

A perusal of first information report indicates that although the applicant was also made an accused alongwith the co-

¶16

accused, who happens to be her husband, all the allegations levelled in the first information report are against the coaccused SK Chaturvedi. Regarding the applicant only this much is stated that the co-accused SK Chaturvedi had transferred some amounts to a current account of M/s OSR Filing Station and the applicant is an authorized signatory of the aforesaid account and she operates the account jointly with the coaccused SK Chaturvedi on his directions.

¶17

In his statement recorded during investigation the informant has reiterated the F.I.R. versions. All the other persons examined by the investigating officer have levelled allegations against the co-accused SK Chaturvedi and no persons has said anything adverse to the applicant which may bring out commission of any offence by her.

¶18

The applicant has been charged for commission of offences under section 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. There is absolutely no averment that any property had been entrusted to the applicant and, therefore, the offence of breach of trust is not made out against the applicant. Moreover, section 409, I.P.C. makes provision regarding criminal breach of trust by public servants or by Banker or Agent and there is no allegation that the applicant held any of the aforesaid positions. For attracting offences under sections 419 and 420, I.P.C. first there has to be something on record which may make out commission of cheating by the applicant by deceiving any person thereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing him to deliver any property to any person. There is absolutely no allegation that the applicant had deceived any person and, therefore, the offences of cheating by impersonation are also not made out against the applicant. There is absolutely no allegation against the applicant to make out commission of offence of forgery of any kind, whatsoever, or of having used as genuine a forged document.

¶19

Sofar as offence under section 120B, I.P.C. is concerned, even for making out that offence the making of a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence has to be alleged and established. Merely because a person may be beneficiary or an offence committed by some other person, no presumption will be drawn that the beneficiary had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the person committing the offence. In criminal law principle of "Proof beyond reasonable doubt" is applied and a persons cannot be prosecuted and punished merely on the basis of any presumption.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the chargesheet has been filled in a mechanical manner stating that

¶21

the commission of offences mentioned in the chargesheet is established against the applicant, whereas none of the witnesses examined by the investigating officer has stated anything adverse to the applicant, which may make out commission of offence made by her. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order taking cognizance of the case and issuing warrants against the applicant, without applying his mind to the facts of the case and without having arrived at a satisfaction that from the material available on record commission of offences alleged was prima facie make out against the applicant.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant application under section 482, so far as it relates to quashing of the chargesheet and summoning order against the applicant, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed . Chargesheet in Case No. 1531 of 2016, State of U.P. v. S.K. Chaturvedi & ors.) in Case Crime No. 447 of 20015 pending before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh, and summoning order dated 5.9.2019 issued therein are hereby quashed .

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 A.Nigam

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi v. the State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi v. the State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sunita Mishra Thru. Her Daughter Smt. Jyoti Mishra Vs Abhishek Mishra and 4 Others

Abdul Haleem and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko and Another

Rukhsar Bano Thru. Her Husband Ekhlak Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Abeer Gupta Thru. Natural Guardian Ankur Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Srikant Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home. and Others

Anamika Thru. Arun Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others