Back
2017 Supreme(All) 1507
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amar Singh Chauhan, J.
J.K. Srivastava & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Another - Respondent
Application U/s 482 No. 7242 of 2002 c/w Application U/s 482 No. 12983 of 2008 & Application U/s 482 No. 35346 of 2008
Decided On : 27-04-2017
Application U/s 482 No. 7242 of 2002
For the Applicant : B.N. Rai, Adarsh Kumar, Manu Khare.
For the Opposite Party :Govt. Advocate, Anoop Trivedi, Bishram Tiwari, Govind Saran Hajela, Shushil Shukla.
Application U/s 482 No. 12983 of 2008
For the Applicant : Manu Khare.
For the Opposite Party :Govt. Advocate, Priyanka Midha, Sushil Shukla.
Application U/s 482 No. 35346 of 2008
For the Applicant : Manu Khare.
For the Opposite Party :Govt. Advocate, Shushil Shukla.
The court emphasized the limited scope of inquiry under section 340 Cr.P.C. and the sparing use of the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 255, 259, 260, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC - The court discussed the allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Companies Act. The legal provisions were interpreted in the context of the alleged offenses and their implications on the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple applications invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court to quash criminal proceedings related to allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Companies Act. The applicants sought to challenge the maintainability of the complaints and the summoning orders issued against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents constituted offenses under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Companies Act. It refused to quash the proceedings and summoning orders, stating that no illegality or demerit was found in the impugned orders.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged forgery and fabrication of documents, the jurisdiction of the court, and the interpretation of legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code and the Companies Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scope of inquiry under section 340 Cr.P.C. was limited to the forgery committed before the court and that the court should not assume the role of a trial court. It emphasized that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used and should only be exercised to prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The applications moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. were rejected as being devoid of merit, and the interim orders stood vacated in all the applications.
Amar Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Sri R.P. Agarwal alongwith Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Manish Goyal alongwith Priyanka Midha, learned counsel appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and perused the material on record.
2. The applicants, J.K. Srivastava and three others, through the Criminal Misc. Application No. 7242 of 2002 moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the further proceedings of Case No. 2788 of 2000 (Anand Srivastava v. J.K. Srivastava and others), pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-Ist, Kanpur Nagar and also prayed that the aforesaid proceeding against the applicants be stayed. It is further prayed that the court below be directed to decide the objections raised by the applicants under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
3. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 12983 of 2008 (Vijay Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others), the applicant, Vijay Srivastava, through this application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.05.2008, passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 909 of 2006 (Anand Srivastava v. J.K. Srivastava and others) under sections 255, 256, 257, 408, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar and further prayed to stay the aforesaid proceeding against the applicant.
4. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 35346 of 2008 (Vijay Srivastava v. State of U.P. and another), the applicant, Vijay Srivastava, through this application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the complaint dated 21.3.2002 bearing Case No. 909 of 2006 (Old No. 4096/2005), (Anand Srivastava v. J.K. Srivastava and others) under sections 255, 256, 257, 408, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar and further prayed to stay the aforesaid proceeding against the applicant.
5. Since the controversy and facts involved in the aforesaid connected applications are the same, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by a common judgement with the consent of the parties.
6. Brief facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this application are that the Complaint Case No. 2788 of 2000 under sections 255, 259, 260, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar was filed with the allegation that the accused persons have fabricated an amendment deed prepared in respect of amendment carried out in ‘J.K Srivastava Family Trust’ on a Stamp Paper. Likewise the accused have also fabricated another document allegedly bought on a Stamp Paper of Rs. 10/- purchased allegedly in the name of a Trust whereas the said Stamp Paper has not been sold to the trust by the concerned Stamp Vendor. The statement of the complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and accused persons were summoned in the above mentioned sections. The second complaint was filed before the A.C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar.
7. It is alleged that applicants in order to conceal their offences colluded with the record keeper, Sri Laxmi Tiwari and certain cuttings were made in the Register No. 2801 of 94-95 and Register No. 2910 of 95-96 in the record room on 26.12.1994. Similarly, on 08.06.1995, at Serial No. 956 Rs. 20/- as mentioned was cut and Rs. 10/- was written on its place. The complainant as well as witnesses were examined under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The court of A.C.M.M., after hearing and perusal of the material, passed the summoning order against applicants. The applicants moved an application dated 07.12.2006 whereby the accused-applicants have desired that the proceeding of the second complaint case against the applicant shall also be stayed by the learned Magistrate as the proceed
