Dismissed

Rajiv Bhalla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023A482/9814/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court rejected the plea to quash the charge-sheet and summoning order. The Court held that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case, the issues were questions of fact for the trial court, and no abuse of process was evident.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 05.09.2017 and summoning order dated 25.10.2017, along with the entire proceedings, was refused.

Rajiv Bhalla Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9814 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajiv Bhalla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,Rohit Nandan Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this case.

¶7

As per the office report dated 15.02.2022, service upon the opposite party no.2 is sufficient, but no one has appeared.

¶8

Heard Mr. Pankaj Srivsatava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶9

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 05.09.2017 and cognizance/summoning order dated 25.10.2017 passed in Case Crime No.303 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-PhaseIII, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶10

In the affidavit accompanying the present application, it has been stated on behalf of the applicant that the applicants is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.

¶11

Per Contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants, wherein the evidence has been collected regarding the fact that a flat was booked by the opposite party no.2 with the company, namely, M/s Value Infra-estate India Pvt. Ltd. Due to fraud played by the applicant, who is an employee

¶12

of the said company, neither the possession of the aforesaid flat was given nor the money deposited by the informant was returned to him. From the allegations made in the FIR, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. He further submits 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 offence. In support of his case, learned AGA 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.

¶13

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

¶14

This Court finds that the averments made in the affidavit on behalf of the applicant call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be 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. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-

¶15

(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,

¶16

(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,

¶17

(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,

¶18

(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45,

¶19

(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. 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 applicants 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 impugned charge-sheet dated 05.09.2017 and summoning order dated 25.10.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

¶22

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

¶23

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶24

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below, who in turn, shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Jitendra/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajiv Bhalla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Bhalla v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aslam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnavaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raju Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheru and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Prakash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P and Another