Back
2013 Supreme(All) 2319
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ravindra Singh, J.
Madhuri Devi -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1661 of 2005 With 35968 of 2008
Decided On : 27-09-2013
For the Applicant : Arvind Singh, P.N.Tripathi, Seema Mishra
For the Opposite Parties : A.G.A., Sriprakash Dwivedi, Amar Nath Tiwari.
The court's decision emphasized that the direction for lodging the FIR and the charge sheet should not be quashed as they were based on prima facie evidence of cognizable offences.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. - The court refused to quash the order for lodging the FIR and the charge sheet, finding that the direction for lodging the FIR was not illegal as the court was prima facie satisfied that the offence of forgery required investigation. The charge sheet was found to be based on prima facie evidence of cognizable offences, and the court refused to quash it.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant's name was mutated by the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, and subsequent legal proceedings led to the lodging of an FIR against the applicant and others for offences including forgery.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to quash the order for lodging the FIR and the charge sheet, finding that the direction for lodging the FIR was not illegal as the court was prima facie satisfied that the offence of forgery required investigation. The charge sheet was found to be based on prima facie evidence of cognizable offences, and the court refused to quash it.
Issues: The main issue was whether the direction for lodging the FIR and the charge sheet should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the direction for lodging the FIR was not illegal as the court was prima facie satisfied that the offence of forgery required investigation. The charge sheet was found to be based on prima facie evidence of cognizable offences, and the court refused to quash it.
Final Decision: The court refused to quash the order for lodging the FIR and the charge sheet, and vacated the interim order. It also directed that bail applications, if made within 30 days, should be heard and disposed of finally.
Heard Ms. Seema Mishra, Sri Arvind Singh, Sri P.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.and Sri Sriprakash Dwivedi, counsel for O.P.Nos. 4 to 6 ( in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1661 of 2005).
2. The applicant Madhuri Devi has moved the Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 1661 of 2005 and 35968 of 2008, in both the applications the common issue is involved , therefore, both the above mentioned applications are being disposed of by a common order.
3. The Criminal Misc. Application No. 1661 of 2005 has been moved with the following prayer:
"That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the Judgment and order of registration of FIR by the opposite party no. 1 against the applicant to be lodged as criminal case ( FIR) directing the O.P.No.2 to lodge before Police Station Cantt.Varanasi against Madhuri Devi, applicant and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 not to harass and initiate proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 15.1.2005 passed by Respondent no. 1 during the pendency if the application before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the applicant shall suffer great loss and injury"
4. The Criminal Misc. Application No. 35968 of 2008 has been filed with the following prayers :
" That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet Regd. at Case No. 10216 of 2007 (arising out of Case Crime No. C-73/05) under sections 419/420/467/468/471 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt. District Varanasi and is now pending before learned C.J.M.Varanasi and all consequential proceedings thereon in the interest of Justice.
May also be pleased to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case during pendency of this criminal misc. application before this Hon'ble Court.
And/or to pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
5. The facts, in brief, of this case are that name of the applicant was mutated by Vivad Grast Karya Karini,Nagar Nigam, Varanasi on the house No. B-2/32 Mohalla Bhadaini, City Varanasi. Against the order of mutation dated 30.12.1999 Sri Kamlakar Dubey, Sri Prabhakar Dubey and Dhananjay Dubey filed the first appeal No. 19 of 2001 in the Small Causes Courts, Varanasi, the same was allowed on 12.12.2003, the order dated 12.12.2003 was challenged by the applicant by way of filing the Second Appeal No. 7 of 2004, the same was dismissed on 15.1.2005 by learned Additional District Judge V, Varanasi but by the order dated 15.1.2005 a direction for lodging the FIR was issued to Officer-in-Charge of Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi. In pursuance of the direction issued by learned Additional District Judge V, Varanasi the FIR in case crime No.C-73 of 2005 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. was lodged at police station Cantt. on 31.5.2005 against the applicant and Kripa Shanker Dubey and others, in which after completing the investigation, the charge sheet dated 27.6.2007 was submitted in the court of learned Magistrate concerned against the applicant and co-accused Kripa Shanker Dubey on which the learned Magistrate concerned took the cognizance on 7.8.2007. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.1.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge V, Varanasi in second appeal no. 7 of 2004 and charge sheet submitted against the applicant, the present applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that learned Additional District Judge V, Varanasi has committed an error in directing the officer-in-charge of police station Cantt to register the case and investigate the same against the applicant and others, such direction has been issued in the order dated 15.1.2005 by which the second appeal has been dismissed and no reason has been recorded by learned Additional District Judge V, Varanasi for issuing such direction, such direction may not be issued
