Point of Law: Using as genuine a Government stamp known to be a counterfeit - Quash of Criminal proceedings/Charge sheet - Court not see any illegality or irregularity, legal or otherwise, warranting interference in submission of charge-sheet - No good ground to quash charge-sheet.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Kumar- IV, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla as well as Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, namely, Vidya Sagar Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Ram Prakash, Abhai Narayan Rai, Mahmood Ahamad, Arvind Yadav, Fauzdar Chauhan and Ravi Kant Rai for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.9.2020 in Criminal Case No. 308 of 2003, under sections 260, 263-Ka, 419, 420, 407, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District and further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 308 of 2003, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have committed no offence. Applicants were bona fide purchaser of alleged stamps of respective amount. Applicants were registered as Contractor of the department. They filed the alleged stamp to get agreement executed. There was no motive to accused/applicants to commit the present crime. It has been further submitted by him that stamp duty have been duly deposited, thus there is no harm to the State Government. It has been further submitted that stamp paper of respective amount was purchased by them by Stamp Vendors who used to sell in Tehsil Campus and Stamp Vendors were not traced out by Investigating Officer, therefore, Stamp Vendors has not been arrested so far and they are moving freely. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the accused/applicants, Investigating Officer did not conduct the proper investigation. He further argued that charge-sheet has been filed against the accused/applicants in casual manner. He showed some papers in support of his contentions.

4. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that accused-applicants have, admittedly, submitted fake stamps papers they used them knowing to be forged, for getting registered agreement. He further submits that all the submissions and pleas of the applicants are based on facts which cannot be adjudicated at this stage under section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Brief facts of prosecution story for disposal of instant application is that accused-applicants filed fake stamp of respective amounts on which Vendors name was disclosed as Randhir Singh, license no. 321 and all these stamps were found forged in an inquiry, they were not found to be issued from the Treasury. Signature and seal on the stamp papers were also found fabricated. FIR was registered. Investigation came to be conducted and Investigating Officer, found sufficient evidence and after completion of investigation, submitted charges sheet against the accused-applicants.

6. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, although the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions

"abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise.

7. It is also well settled that evidence of accused-applicants or defence evidence and any question of fact cannot be determined at the stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. Veracity or truthfulness for the statement or any documents can only be adjudicated after the evidence is adduced by the party in trial court.

8. In case of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 Supreme Court has held

“21. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not