Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.
Rajesh Malik and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 29058 of 2019
Decided On : 02-08-2019
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing - Cr.P.C. 482 - 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 I.P.C. - [Cheating, Forgery, Fraud, Conspiracy] - [406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 I.P.C.] - The court discussed the scope and status of reports submitted by the investigating Officer u/s. 173(2) and Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and emphasized that the concerned court is obliged to consider both the reports at an appropriate stage of the proceedings of the criminal case in question. The court also highlighted that the mere filing of a final report or filing of a favorable report to the accused will not obliterate or eradicate the allegations of the F.I.R. or the incriminating material collected in support of it by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet was submitted. The court dismissed the application seeking the quashing of proceedings as well as the charge sheet, emphasizing that the concerned court is the appropriate authority to evaluate and appreciate the facts of the case and adjudicate upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of material on the basis of which the cognizance may be taken, the summoning of the accused may be done, or the charges against the accused may be framed in a particular case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants invoked inherent jurisdiction of the Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned charge sheet dated 03.9.2018, cognizance order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar as well as entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2009 of 2019 (State vs. Rajesh Malik and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1201 of 2018, u/s. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Sector 20 Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application seeking the quashing of proceedings as well as the charge sheet, emphasizing that the concerned court is the appropriate authority to evaluate and appreciate the facts of the case and adjudicate upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of material on the basis of which the cognizance may be taken, the summoning of the accused may be done, or the charges against the accused may be framed in a particular case.
Issues: The main submission raised by the applicants' counsel was that the material collected through further investigation and its resultant report are relevant documents to decide whether cognizance in the matter should have been taken or not, and therefore, the court should have once again reconsidered its decision whereby it had taken cognizance of the matter and should have dropped the proceedings in view of the favorable report submitted by the Investigating Officer who conducted further investigation into the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the concerned court is obliged to consider both the reports at an appropriate stage of the proceedings of the criminal case in question. The court also highlighted that the mere filing of a final report or filing of a favorable report to the accused will not obliterate or eradicate the allegations of the F.I.R. or the incriminating material collected in support of it by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet was submitted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application seeking the quashing of proceedings as well as the charge sheet, emphasizing that the concerned court is the appropriate authority to evaluate and appreciate the facts of the case and adjudicate upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of material on the basis of which the cognizance may be taken, the summoning of the accused may be done, or the charges against the accused may be framed in a particular case.
ORDER :
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants as well as power filed today by Shri Ajatshatru Pandey, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 are taken on record.
2. The applicants Rajesh Malik and Randeep Waraich have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned charge sheet dated 03.9.2018, cognizance order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar as well as entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2009 of 2019 (State vs. Rajesh Malik and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1201 of 2018, u/s. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Sector 20 Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. In nutshell the controversy involved in the present matter is that opposite party no. 2 Amit Gupta along with Sanjay Rastogi, Paramjit Gandhi and PTC Mouldings Pvt. Ltd. lodged an F.I.R. dated 22.7.2018 against Rajesh Malik, Randeep Waraich and M/s. Carnoustie Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. with the allegations of cheating forgery and fraud and conspiracy by stating that the accused persons have cheated them for an amount of almost Rs. 5,36,89,000/- (Five crore thirty six lakh eighty nine thousand only) by dishonestly enticing and selling them (complainants) non-existent plots in Noida. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that in the year 2011-12, Rajesh Malik and Randeep Waraich represented themselves to be the Director of M/s. Carnoustie Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was made to appear by these persons that Carnoustie was the sole legal heir of several plots/land in Sectors-96, 97 and 98 in Noida which were being developed by a company known as Unitech Group as a part of its large project known as Unitech Grande. These persons further made to appear that they received these plots from Unitech for valid consideration and were therefore in position to further sell those plots to third parties. It was further made to appear to the complainants that Unitech Hi Tech Developers Ltd. had allotted several plots to Carnoustie including plot Nos. D3, D4, D5, D6 and D7 in Sectors 96, 97 and 98 in Noida, in respect of which the site plans were shown to the complainants by pointing out the location of the plots, on the basis of which the complainants found these plots to be contiguous and well situated. It has also been alleged in the F.I.R. that in order to deceive the complainants, the accused Rajesh Malik and Randeep Waraich made continuous representations to make the complainants believe that they were the sole owners of these plots and would enter into formal documentation to transfer ownership to the successful purchasers. Upon such fraudulent and dishonest representation of facts, the complainants made payments of huge amounts on different dates by way of cheque/RTGS, total of which comes to the tune of Rs. 9,14,78,000/-. The F.I.R. further discloses the amount, date and mode of total 13 different payments made in the year 2012 and 2013 through bank transactions. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that Sanjay Rastogi purchased two plots being D6 and D7 and the seller signed one agreement for plot No. D7 but dillydallied signing of another agreement for plot No. D6. It has been further alleged in the F.I.R. that M/s. Carnoustie Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. with a dishonest intention to perpetuate fraud and cause loss to the complainant, executed as many as seven documents in the form of agreement to sale, irrevocable letter of authority, indemnity/undertaking, allotment letter etc. in favour of Amit Gupta and Sanjay Rastogi. It has been further submitted that the complainants have now learnt that the representations and claims of these persons were not only false but were false to the knowledge of Rajesh Malik and Randeep Waraich at the time of making these representations and claims and hence, the object of cheating is clear. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that these persons began to delay the identification of plot
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
