Back
2015 Supreme(All) 2482
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.
Chandra Shekhar Trivedi - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Case No.2543, 3505 of 2010
Decided On : 17-01-2015
For the Petitioners: Sri Santosh Srivastava and Sri Manish Bajpai
For the Opposite Parties: AGA, Sri R.C. Rastogi and Sri Riyaz Ahmad
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Proceedings - 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and their interpretations. The court emphasized the need for entrustment, misappropriation, and dishonest intention to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust. It also highlighted the importance of considering only the averments made in the complaint or charge-sheet at the stage of taking cognizance. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 sparingly and cautiously, emphasizing the need for sound, reasonable, and indubitable material to quash criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of misappropriation of rental income collected from commercial shops by the office bearers of a college. The petitioners were summoned to face trial under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC based on the complaint filed by an individual. The petitioners challenged the summoning order, presenting evidence to refute the allegations and demonstrate the absence of criminal intent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the complaint and the evidence adduced did not constitute prima facie any criminal offence or make out a case against the accused persons. It concluded that the proceedings were manifestly attended with malice and were an abuse of the process of the court, leading to the quashing of the proceedings and the summoning order.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the misappropriation of rental income, the legality of the Sansthan's actions, and the concealment of relevant facts by the complainant. The court also addressed the abuse of the legal process and the malicious intent behind the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to support the criminal allegations, the concealment of material facts, and the malicious intent behind the proceedings. It emphasized the need for sound and indubitable material to quash criminal proceedings and the importance of considering only the averments made in the complaint or charge-sheet at the stage of taking cognizance.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings and the summoning order, concluding that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court and did not serve the ends of justice.
The aforesaid two petitions, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (In short 'Cr.P.C.'), have been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No.414 of 2008, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Goshainganj, District Lucknow pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Lucknow and also the impugned order dated 17.04.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Lucknow whereby the petitioners of both the cases have been summoned under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC to face trial.
2. Since, in both the petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, both petitions are being decided by this common judgement.
3. Brief facts for deciding this petition are that opposite party no.2-Sunil Kumar Awasthi filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow against Chandra Shekhar Trivedi (Secretary), Shiv Ratan Singh (President) and Vibhuti Bhushan Pandey (Treasurer), the office bearers of Survodai Seva Sansthan, Gosainganj, Lucknow (In short 'Sansthan'), to lodge FIR against them with the allegations that they are misappropriating the rental income collected from tenants of 65 commercial shops constructed in the campus of Rampal Trivedi Inter College, Gosainganj (In short 'College'). The value of aforesaid shops are in crores and rent collected of the aforesaid shops are nearly Rupees 4 to 5 lac per year. In the revenue records dated 03.05.1972, 26.12.1995 and 24.10.2005, the ownership of aforesaid shops of the College is recorded as of State. The Sansthan have no property of its own. The members of the Management Committee of the college with intend to misappropriate the income of the college established the aforesaid Sansthan, whereas the College has its own Bank Account in the name of Vidhyalaya Vikas Kosh. The income from the property of the college required to be deposited in the Bank Account of the College and the liability for depositing the aforesaid income lies upon the accused persons. Instead of depositing the aforesaid amount in the account of the college maintained in the Bank the accused persons are utilizing the aforesaid rental income by committing forgery in the record. In the aforesaid forgery several departmental officers and officials are involved. It is also alleged by the opposite party no.2 in the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. that he had given personally an application for lodging report to S.O., Gosainganj, Lucknow on 14.07.2008. In this regard, he also sent an application to SSP, Lucknow through speed post on 15.07.2008 but inspite of it, report could not be lodged. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 moved the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate treated it as a complaint case and proceeded to record the statement of complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under Section 202, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17.04.2010 summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 409, 420, 467, 467, 471 IPC.
4. So far as Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 482, Cr.P.C.) No.3505 of 2010 is concerned, this petition was initially filed by six persons, namely, Sohan Lal, Smt. Asha Dwivedi, Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Rupesh Kumar Dixit, Daya Shankar Tripathi and Shiv Ratan Singh but later on, vide order dated 13.04.2011 passed in Cr.M. Application No.107181 of 2010, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of petitioners no.1, 2 and 4 and the name of petitioner no.6 was also deleted from the array of parties on the ground that he has expired. During the pendency of this petition, Vibhuti Bhushan Pandey also passed away.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that before filing the aforesaid application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., a first information report was lodged by Direct
