Applicants sought quashing of a criminal case alleging they forged the informant's documents to open a bank account in his name and blackmail him. The court held disputed questions of fact cannot be decided at quashing stage and dismissed the application.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110158
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5308 of 2024
Applicant :- Taj Babu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi,Mukhtar Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghavendra Singh,Suvarna Singh,Upendra Singh
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. The Vakalatnama of Sri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is not on record. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order-sheet.
4. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Taj Babu, Anees, Waseem and Irfan Ali, with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 848 of 2018 (State Vs. Taj Babu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 540 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, as well as cognizance order dated 19.12.2019 and the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Sambhal, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi, with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application.
5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 24.09.2016 by Deepak Kumar against the applicants and 2-3 unknown persons on the basis of an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that he is a class-A contractor in P.W.D., Moradabad and is registered since 2000 and working since then. He is a permanent resident of District Sambhal. During the course of his work as a contractor various petty contractors were also involved and most of the work during 2005 to 2013 was done by petty contractor Taj Babu. After 2013 he stopped giving wok to Taj Babu since his activities were suspicious. Later on he came to
know that Taj Babu came in contact with a contractor Irfan Ali who was having animosity with the informant and they were trying to implicate him in some matter and blackmail him. On 20.07.2016 through a registered post and on 26.07.2016 from Waseem, Anees & Irfan he received notices regarding cheques from which it transpires that without his knowledge a bank account has been opened in Central Bank of India, District Sambhal in the name of the informant. He never went to the bank for it. The accused persons are involved in the same and have forged papers in the name of the informant and by cheating and committing fraud have opened forged bank account. They opened the bank account in the year 2010 and transactions were done from it by them. To keep the account open they used to deposit Rs. 100/- in it. They even got cheque-book issued and have misused it. He is being blackmailed. In the said forged account the mobile number of accused Irfan has been given. They have got a report lodged in the same sequence to show involvement of the informant in other matter. During the course of his work he never purchased any material from accused Waseem & Anees and as such just to blackmail him, the accused persons have opened a forged bank account in his name and got issued a cheque-book and are using it. It is further alleged that on 15.08.2016 at about 8 a.m. the accused persons and 2-3 unknown persons came to his house and abused him and threatened him that if he gives any application or makes any complaint then they would murder him and they assaulted him which was seen by his wife and passerby. The first information report has thus been lodged.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that after thorough and complete investigation the police submitted a final report dated 23.05.2017 in favour of the accused persons. It is further submitted that subsequent to the filing of the final report a protest petition dated 14.01.2019 was filed by the first informant / opposite party no.2 on which the trial court summoned them vide order dated 19.12.2019. It is submitted that against the said order dated 19.12.2019 the applicants who are the accused filed a Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2020 which was dismissed by the concerned Sessions Judge vide judgement & order dated 20.12.2023. It is submitted that the present case is a case of no injury. It is further submitted that the present case is a case of counterblast to the first information report lodged as Case Crime No. 33 of 2016 and the case under the N.I. Act filed by accused Irfan. It is submitted that the Bank Manager was interrogated during investigation who in detail stated that the informant approached the bank for opening of a bank account and after due verification his bank account was opened. It is further submitted that even the introducer of the account of the informant was interrogated who stated of introducing the bank account in the bank. It is submitted that the proceedings against the applicants are totally false and concocted and deserves to be quashed.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing. It is submitted that the applicants are named in the first information report and have been assigned role
therein. It is submitted that the applicants indulged in opening a forged bank account in the name of the informant in which they were doing transactions just for the reason that the informant may be involved in matters so that they may blackmail him. It is submitted that lodging of the first information report and filing of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act are malafide acts of the accused persons since the same was their modus operandi to implicate him in various matters. It is submitted that the involvement of the applicants is also clear from the fact that in the bank account the mobile number of accused Irfan was mentioned and he was receiving the messages of transactions of the account from the back which was also well-planned act by them. It is submitted that the order summoning the applicants is a detailed order passed by the court concerned on merits against which a revision has been dismissed by the Revisional Court by means of a detailed judgement & order. It is submitted that the present petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present case has been initiated on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The applicants are named therein. The applicants were not unknown persons to the first informant. The case is of opening of bank account in the name of the first informant by the accused persons by forging his documents and thus committing cheating with him. The said bank account was also being operated by them.The cheque-book was got issued by them from the bank. The bank account contains the mobile number of one of the applicants. The facts of the matter relate to dispute questions of fact. A mini trial at this stage cannot be held particularly with regards to nature of offence and the allegations made therein are concerned. The first informant has lodged the present case and even the accused persons have lodged and initiated some cases against him. The truthfulness of allegations in the matters cannot be decided at this stage.
9. The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as under:
" 13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18 ], the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as
explained previously by this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
10. Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.
11. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicants and the law as stated above, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is without any substance and is thus dismissed .
Order Date :- 5.7.2024 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings arising out of FIR over a forged bank account and cheque-book opened in the informant's name could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶9
(2021) 19 SCC 401 · Who else cites this
Khwaja Nazir AhmadReferred
King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Taj Babu
Anees
Waseem
Irfan Ali
State of U.P.
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
