Virat Pachauri vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
Virat Pachauri and Another - Applicants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/s 482 No. 20686 of 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Tanisha Jahangir Monir, Nipun Singh.
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Vibhu Rai.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 505 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 73 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 311 A - Offence of Cheating - Criminal Breach of trust - Forgery of Valuable security,will etc - Application filed for quashing the charge sheet - Held, there is material concealment on part of applicants regarding rejection of discharge application - Even otherwise discharge application was rejected up to revisional court, then applicants can challenge order of revisional court, if they are aggrieved against rejection of discharge application - In present case no suit is pending for cancellation of alleged forged deed and even the FSL report obtained by investigating officer clearly shows that signature of father of opposite party no.2 was forged - At this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out and case is purely civil in nature - Even otherwise, once discharge application of applicants has been rejected and revision against that order was also rejected and now charges have been framed and those orders are not under-challenged in present application and actually these orders were concealed from this Court,Court does not find any merit in present case application - Application is rejected

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh along with Sri Rishi Upadhya, Ajay Gautam and Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 07.07.2022 as well as summoning order dated 12.07.2022 giving rise to Case No. 25474 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0544 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 505 IPC, Police Station-Bannadevi, District Aligarh.

3. The contention of counsel for the applicants is that it is an undisputed fact that Munna Lal has been residing in the factory in question as a security guard. It was also submitted that the sole basis for submitting the charge sheet is the FSL report regarding the signature of Surendra Kumar (father of opposite party no.2) as the same was sent to FSL without permission of the court concerned but the same was obtained only with the permission of civil court where the suit for injunction filed by the applicant no.1 was pending, therefore, the said FSL report is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon in view of Section 311 A Cr.P.C. as well as Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. In support his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court (i) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Babu Misra; (1980) 2 SCC 343, (ii) Sukhvinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab; (1994) 5 SCC 152, (iii) judgement of Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 2001 in Sapan Haldar & Another vs. State decided on 25.05.2012, (iv) another judgement of the Delhi High Court in Crl. M.A. No. 14076 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.582 of 2012 (Raj Kumar vs. State) decided on 18.10.2012, (v) Criminal Appeal Nos.575 and 576 of 2011 Santosh vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi decided on 28.04.2023 reported in Manu/SC0499/2023). In all these judgements the Hon'ble Apex Court and Delhi High Court observed regarding the scope of Section 311-A and Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act.

5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the dispute in question is a purely civil dispute and whether forgery committed in preparing the deed in question can be decided by the civil court after examining the evidence and criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide such type of civil dispute.

6. Percontra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the present 482 Cr.P.C. application itself is an abuse of the process of the court because prior to filing the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C., a discharge application was filed by the applicants before the court below on 17.04.2023 which was rejected on 18.05.2023 thereafter revision was filed on 12.05.2023 and the same was also rejected on 23.06.2023 but all these facts were not brought on record, therefore there is material concealment on the part of the applicants.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied on the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2018 (K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Ors. decided on 09.07.2008 as well as in Civil Appeal No.3827 of 2007 (Prestige Light Ltd. vs. State Bank of India) decided on 20.08.2007. In both these judgements, the Apex Court observed that if there is suppression of material facts on the part of any parties, then those parties shall not be entitled to any relief from the High Court. It is further contended that co-accused Ashok Kumar had filed 482 Cr.P.C. Application No.17191 of 2023 challenging the same criminal proceeding which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2023. Therefore, once the quashing of criminal proceedings has been refused by the High Court at the instance of co-accused then another application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. application on behalf of another co-accused cannot be entertained.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for th