# Mohd. Khalid @ Khalid v. Union of India & Anr. Opp. Parties - **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 409 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-07-14 - **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 6191 of 2023 - **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-khalid-khalid-v-union-of-india-anr-opp-parties-50328 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 211, 215, 464 & 482. - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 302 & 323 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8 & 21: - Application - for quashing the charge-sheet - offence of murder - punishment of voluntarily causing hurt - FIR - search & arrest - recovery memo - investigation - framing charges - NBW - effect of omission/error to frame charge - even after regular presence of the present applicant before the trial court, non bailable warrant has bene issued for only one day delay, which is too harsh - applicant give undertaking that he will remain present before the trial court on each and every date and he will not take any unnecessary adjournment and therefore, the NBW issued against the applicant my not be give effect - court finds that, so far as the provision of section 215 Cr.P.C. is concern, unless the accused is misled by such omission or any prejudice is caused to him, errors can be rectified at subsequent stage - held, provision of section 464 Cr.P.C. provides mechanism for rectifying the error even at the stage of appeal or revision - thus, court is of considered opinion that error and omission in 'charge' can be 410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES rectified, if no material prejudice is caused to accused - and it also trite law that incorrectness in framing of 'charge' would not vitiate conviction if no prejudice is caused to accused as procedure prescribed in Cr.P.c. is with the object to fulfil ends of interest of justice and not to frustrate it on ground of endless technicalities - court do not find any error and unlawfulness in the order impugned - accordingly, Application is dismissed. (Para - 21, 22, 24) Application u/s 482 dismissed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: ## Text 7 All. Mohd. Khalid @ Khalid Vs. Union of India & Anr. 409 certificate and submitting the same before the public authority for wrongful gain is very overt. The Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases has very categorically distinguished the 'the intention of doing any wrong and fraudulent or dishonest intention. Vide the aforesaid judgments it has very clearly been held that the superior courts shall ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment, but on the other hand it has also been held that inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. be exercised sparingly and carefully. It has also been held that there can be no hard and fast rule and each case has to be considered on its own merits. It is further said that the genuine complaint, keeping in view of the purport and object, would not be interfered. This court has also noticed that the counsel for the applicant has also failed to demonstrate that how any cognizable offence was not made out as the statements of the witnesses and the complainant are intact and prima facie there is a record which is said to be forged and the applicant seems to be beneficiary. 23. It is trite law that the testimony of the witnesses cannot be examined by this Court and deciding the fate of the trial while giving finding that those testimonies are baseless is not proper at this stage and further the criminal and civil proceedings can go on as there are different consequences of the same. 24. Before parting with the judgments, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove would have no bearing on the merit of the criminal case no 6395 of 2017 pending before the trial court. 25. Considering above said submissions and discussions, this Court finds no merit in this case and thus, the instant application is hereby dismissed. ---------- (2023) 7 ILRA 409 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 14.07.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Application u/s 482 No. 6191 of 2023 Mohd. Khalid @ Khalid ...Applicant Versus Union of India & Anr. ...Opp. Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for the Opp. Parties: S M Singh Royekwar Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 211, 215, 464 & 482. - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 302 & 323 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8 & 21: - Application - for quashing the charge-sheet - offence of murder - punishment of voluntarily causing hurt - FIR - search & arrest - recovery memo - investigation - framing charges - NBW - effect of omission/error to frame charge - even after regular presence of the present applicant before the trial court, non bailable warrant has bene issued for only one day delay, which is too harsh - applicant give undertaking that he will remain present before the trial court on each and every date and he will not take any unnecessary adjournment and therefore, the NBW issued against the applicant my not be give effect - court finds that, so far as the provision of section 215 Cr.P.C. is concern, unless the accused is misled by such omission or any prejudice is caused to him, errors can be rectified at subsequent stage - held, provision of section 464 Cr.P.C. provides mechanism for rectifying the error even at the stage of appeal or revision - thus, court is of considered opinion that error and omission in 'charge' can be 410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES rectified, if no material prejudice is caused to accused - and it also trite law that incorrectness in framing of 'charge' would not vitiate conviction if no prejudice is caused to accused as procedure prescribed in Cr.P.c. is with the object to fulfil ends of interest of justice and not to frustrate it on ground of endless technicalities - court do not find any error and unlawfulness in the order impugned - accordingly, Application is dismissed. (Para - 21, 22, 24) Application u/s 482 dismissed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: 1. Kammari Brahmaiah & ors.Vs Public Prosecution, High Court of A.P. (1999 vol. 2 SCC 522), 2. Kamil Vs St. of U.P. (2019 vol. 12 SCC 600), 3. Santosh Kumari Vs St. of J.& K. & ors.(2011 vol. 9 SCC 234). (Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.) 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant, today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record. 3. Notice issued to the opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with. 4. By means of this application, the applicant has assailed the charge dated 23.3.2022 framed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.09/Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Lucknow, in Criminal Case No.194 of 2015 (Union of India Vs. Nasreen Bano and others), initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party in C.B.N. Crime No.8 of 2014, under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act. 5. Factual matrix as per the prosecution story is that on 13.12.2014, while receiving information through mukhbir, co-accused Nasreen Bano was arrested with contraband substance and while preparing the recovery memo, the police team also recorded the statement, wherein the name of the applicant came into light. House of the applicant was searched on 28.4.2015 but the officers of the Department could not recover any contraband or incriminating articles. The trial court has taken cognizance on 5.6.2015 on charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, which was assailed by applicant before this Court and the same was set aside, while giving liberty to pass fresh order and, thereafter, fresh order was passed, as per the version of the applicant, without following the procedure of law. On 22.12.2021, the applicant was enlarged on bail and he kept on appearing before the trial court, while participating in the trial proceedings. Thereafter, on 22.2.2022, the trial of the applicant was separated from the co-accused Nasreen Bano and the applicant was summoned through warrant B. On 23.3.2022, the charge was framed though neither the contents of the charges were told to the applicant nor even his name is mentioned in the charges, which is evident from the order itself, though the applicant has signed over the order of charge on the same day. The order of charge dated 23.3.2022 is under challenge, in this application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order dated 23.3.2022 has been passed without mentioning the name of the present applicant in the contents of the charges. He 7 All. Mohd. Khalid @ Khalid Vs. Union of India & Anr. 411 added that though the signature of the present applicant is on the said order but he has not been told/informed regarding the contents of the charges whereas it is not a case that the present applicant avoided the criminal proceedings instituted against him, as he, after the aforesaid order, is appearing on each and every date before the trial court. Further he submits that in fact, the provisions prescribed under Section 211 of the Cr.P.C. has clearly been violated by the trial court while passing the impugned order. Drawing attention towards the impugned order, he submits that name of one of the co-accused Nasreen Bano is mentioned therein as charges have been framed against Nasreen Bano only and only by averring that the signature of the present application is on the order of framing of charges, does not mean that the provisions of Section 211 Cr.P.C. has been complied with. 7. He further added that the trial court is proceeding in a hasty manner, which is evident from the fact that just after framing of the charges on 7.7.2023, non-bailable warrant has been issued, vide order dated 10.7.2023, though there is no history of the applicant that he has ever avoided the proceedings of the trial court and even there is no apprehension that he will escape away from the criminal proceedings. Thus, submission is that the order of charge dated 23.3.2022 vitiates in the eyes of law and the same may be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1, Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the order dated 23.3.2022, by which charges have been framed, has rightly been passed. He pointed out that the signature of the present applicant is there and, thus, he has no occasion to say that the charges were not brought in the knowledge of the applicant. He submits that it seems that due to inadvertence, the name of the present applicant could not be transcribed in the order dated 23.3.2022 and it was corrected later on. The applicant kept on appearing before the trial court for about more than one year. The effect of the errors in 'charge' has been given in Section 215 of the Cr.P.C. Section 215 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "215. Effect of errors. No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice." 9. Referring the aforesaid provisions, he submits that it has been provided in so many words that the error committed in this Chapter can be rectified unless the accused was infact misled by such error or omission and it has occasioned the failure of justice. He further submits that even the error can be rectified at the stage of appeal or revision as envisaged under Section 464 of the Cr.P.C. Section 464 of the Cr.P.C. is quoted as under:- "464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. (1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a 412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may- (a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommended from the point immediately after the framing of the charge; (b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit: Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction." 10. The abovesaid provisions provide that if the court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may, in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that the charge be framed and that the trial be recommended from the point immediately after the framing of charge and in case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon in whatever manner it thinks fit. 11. He submits that in fact this was in the mind of the legislature that while framing the charge by the court, how the errors can be rectified in case of any error/omission by the trial court, therefore, there is no hard rule that the error in the charge cannot be rectified. 12. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kammari Brahmaiah and others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 522 and referred para 6 thereof, which is quoted as under:- "6. The aforesaid section is in mandatory terms and it specifically provides what is to be done in cases where charge is not framed or there is an error, omission or irregularity in framing of the charge. From the unequivocal terms of the section, it can be stated that finding, sentence or order could be set aside only in those cases where the facts are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved. Secondly, if the facts are such that charge could be framed and yet it is not framed but there is no failure of justice, has in fact been occasioned thereby, the finding sentence or order of the court of competent jurisdiction is not to be set aside on that ground. Thirdly, if there is failure of justice occassioned by not framing of the charge or in case an error, omission or irregularity in charge re-trial of the case is to be directed as provided under subsection (2)." 13. Submission is that Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the evantualities, where the charges have not been framed in any offence or there is error, omission or irregularity in framing of charges, thereby holding in so many words that if there is failure of justice by not framing of charges, in any offence or in case of any error, omission or irregularity, re-trial of the case is to be directed, under sub section 2 of Section 464 of Cr.P.C. He submits that keeping in mind that whole proceeding may not become redundant, the mechanism has been provided and so is the Apex Court, while interpreting the same, has also upheld by way of aforesaid verdict. 7 All. Mohd. Khalid @ Khalid Vs. Union of India & Anr. 413 14. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of Kamil Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 12 SCC 600, he referred paras 11, 14, 16 and 18, which are quoted as under:- "11. Absence of charge would vitiate the conviction only if it has caused prejudice to the accused and has in fact been occasioned thereby. In Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Constitution Bench explained the concept of "prejudice caused to the accused" and "failure of justice" and held as under:- "6. Before we proceed to set out our answer and examine the provisions of the Code, we will pause to observe that the Code is a code of procedure and, like all procedural laws, is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities. The objectof the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-established and wellunderstood lines that accord with our notions of natural justice. If he does, if he is tried by a competent court, if he is told and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself, then, provided there is 'substantial' compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere mistakes in procedure, mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal by the Code and the trial is not vitiated unless the accused can show substantial prejudice. That, broadly speaking, is the basic principle on which the Code is based." (emphasis supplied) 14. After considering the meaning of the expression "failure of justice" and after referring to the Constitution Bench in Willie Slaney and Gurbachan Singh, this Court in Main Pal v. State of Haryana, held as under:(Main Pal case, SCC pp. 137-138, paras 15-17) "15. In Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, this Court considered the meaning of the expression "failure of justice" occurring in Section 464 Cr.PC. This Court held thus: '22. ... a conviction would be valid even if there is any omission or irregularity in the charge, provided it did not occasion a failure of justice. 23. ... The criminal court, particularly the superior court should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage. ........' 16. The above principles are reiterated in several decisions of this Court, including State of W.B. and Another v. Laisal Haque, State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy, Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P., Dumpala Chandra Reddy v. Nimakayala Balireddy and Sanichar Shani v. State of Bihar. 17. The following principles relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code, relevant to this case, become evident from the said enunciations: (i) The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential facts that he has to meet. The charge must also contain the particulars of date, time, place and person against whom the offence was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (ii) The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact 414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES nature of the charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced. Where an accused is charged with having committed offence against one person but on the evidence led, he is convicted for committing offence against another person, without a charge being framed in respect of it, the accused will be prejudiced, resulting in a failure of justice. But there will be no prejudice or failure of justice where there was an error in the charge and the accused was aware of the error. Such knowledge can be inferred from the defence, that is, if the defence of the accused showed that he was defending himself against the real and actual charge and not the erroneous charge. (iii) In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly, and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself." (emphasis supplied) 16. The question falling for consideration is whether non-framing of charge has caused prejudice in the present case. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it is relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether they were explained to him and whether he got a fair chance to defend. The crux of the issue is whether in this case, omission to frame charge under Section 302 IPC has vitiated conviction of the appellant/accused. 18. As seen from the above, charge was not framed against the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. But it is for the accused to prove that omission to frame charge has occasioned in a failure of justice. Though specific charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was not framed, the gist of the charge sheet filed against the appellant/accused clearly shows that the accused has been charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as seen from the following:- "Sir, On 03.01.1986, the complainant came to the Police Station Kotwali and orally informed that his niece went to take water from the tap.She was teased by the accused but they did not make it an issue due to the respect in the society. However, there was an ugly quarrel over there. He pacified his niece. I along with Adil and Akhlaq today were going to my shop situated at Jogipuraat about 04.00 PM, when we reached near Lalpur Mandir, accused mentioned in Column No.2 and 3 were present there. Kamil was carrying a Danda Nasir was carrying a hockey and Rashid was carrying knife in their hands. They surrounded us. They abused my nephew Adil. Adil protested about abusing and said that it would not be good if you continue. On this accused hit my nephew with danda. I snatched danda from Kamil to save my nephew. Accused Nasir and Adil caught hold my nephew and Rashid poked the knife in his chest. My nephew sat down on the earth and his condition started deteriorating. I carried him to hospital where he died. On the basis of this information a crime case No.2/86 u/s 302/323/34 IPC. Accused Rashid and others were arrested and were sent to jail. Accused Kamil is not available and the investigation is going on against him. The charge sheet is filed u/s 302/323/34 IPC against these accused persons. Dated 13.01.1986." (emphasis supplied) In the charges framed, even if the appellant and accused Nasir were charged 7 All. Mohd. Khalid @ Khalid Vs. Union of India & Anr. 415 only under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, the gist of the charge sheet clearly alleges their sharing of common intention in committing the murder of Akhlaq with the first accused Rashid." 15. The Apex Court dealing with the issue regarding omission, in framing the charges, has held that same can be rectified even at the stage of appeal and revision. 16. Further referring the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Santosh Kumari Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 234 has placed reliance on paras 17 and 18, which read as under:- "17. Like all procedural laws, the Code of Criminal Procedure is devised to subserve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities. It regards some of its provisions as vital but others not, and a breach of the latter is a curable irregularity unless the accused is prejudiced thereby. It places errors in the charge, or even a total absence of a charge in the curable class. That is why we have provisions like Sections 215 and 464 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 18.The object of the charge is to give the accused notice of the matter he is charged with and does not touch jurisdiction. If, therefore, the necessary information is conveyed to him in other ways and there is no prejudice, the framing of the charge is not invalidated. The essential part of this part of law is not any technical formula of words but the reality, whether the matter was explained to the accused and whether he understood what he was being tried for. Sections 34, 114 and 149 of the IPC provide for criminal liability viewed from different angles as regards actual participants, accessories and men actuated by a common object or a common intention; and as explained by five Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in Willie Slavey Vs. The State of M.P. SCR at p.1189, the charge is a rolled-up one involving the direct liability and the constructive liability without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to be made constructively liable." 17. Vide the abovesaid Judgment, it has been held by the Apex Court that if the necessary informantion is conveyed to the accused in other ways and no prejudice is caused to him, the framing of the charges could not be invalidated as the object of the charge is to provide the notice of the matter to the accused. 18. Next contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 is that no prejudice is caused to the applicant as he had knowledge otherwise that charges have been framed against him as he has put his signature over the order of 'charge'. He further added that it is a fact that the present applicant has also examined some of the prosecution witnesses and about one year passed, but he did not raise this objection within such period of time. He submits that now additional charges have been framed, vide order dated 7.7.2023 and, as such, each and every grievance, which has been raised by the applicant, is of no avail. The grievance as raised by the applicant is on non est ground and, thus, instant application has no merit and the same may be dismissed. 19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that on 23.3.2022, the charges were framed, wherein the name of one coaccused Nasreen Bano is mentioned, but the name of the applicant does not find 416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES place. It is further apparent that the signature of the applicant, namely, Mohd. Khalid is on the order of charge and this fact has not been denied by the counsel for the applicant. It is also an admitted fact that the prosecution witnesses were produced and they were examined by the applicant, meaning thereby that the fact with respect to framing of 'charges' was very well in the knowledge of the present applicant. This Court has also noticed that later on, vide order dated 7.7.2023, the additional charges were framed and the trial court is proceeding in the matter. 20. It emerges from the several verdicts of the Apex Court as well as relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., as envisaged under Section 215 and Section 464 which says that the omission or error can be rectified even at the stage of revision and appeal. So far as the provisions of Section 215 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it clearly says that unless the accused is misled by such omission or any prejudice is caused to him, errors can be rectified at subsequent stage. Provision of Section 464 of Cr.P.C. provides mechanism for rectifying the error even at the stage of appeal or revision. 21. This Court is of the considered opinion that the error and omission in 'charge' can be rectified, if no material prejudice is caused to the accused. It is also trite law that incorrectness in framing of 'charge' would not vitiate the conviction if no prejudice is caused to the accused as the procedure prescribed in Cr.P.C. is with object to fulfill the ends of interest of justice and not to frustrate it on the ground of endless technicalities. Every criminal law is evolved, designed and promulgated so that the same remains fair to the accused, fair to the State and fair to the society at large, as the same is the ultimate achievement. The trial court must be cautious while considering the prejudice caused to the accused, as no injustice can prevail. 22. In view of the above said submissions and discussions, I do not find any error and unlawfulness in the order impugned, after it has been rectified, vide order dated 7.7.2023, thus, there is no merit in this application. 23. Resultantly, the application is hereby dismissed. 24. However, it has been stated that even after the regular presence of the present applicant before the trial court, non bailable warrant has been issued for only delay of one day, which is too harsh. He submits that the present applicant undertakes that he will remain present before the trial court on each and every date and he will not take any unnecessary adjournment and, therefore, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant may not be given effect too. 25. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has fairly submitted that he has no objection as prayed abovesaid, though the applicant may be directed to co-operate with the trial proceedings. 26. In view of the aforesaid submissions, non bailable warrant issued, vide order dated 10.7.2023 is kept in abeyance. In case of further non presence of the applicant, the trial court is at liberty to take fresh recourse. 27. It is further clarified that the findings given as above would have no bearing on the merits of the case, pending before the trial court. ---------- 7 All. Ajit Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 417 (2023) 7 ILRA 417 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.06.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. Application u/s 482 No. 37458 of 2016 Ajit Kumar Gupta ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Ashutosh Sharma Counsel for the Opp. Parties: G.A., Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Sanjay Mishra Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 2(h), 156(1), 156(3), 173(2), 173(8), 231 & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B & 471 - Evidence Act, 1872 -Section - 25 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -Section - 54 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article - 21: - Application U/s 482 - for quashing the supplementary charge-sheet and impugned summoning order along with entire proceedings - complaint - FIR - offence of Cheating and dishonesty - forgery of valuable security - investigation - Charge-sheet, in which application & anr.co-accused was exonerated - further investigation - supplementary chargesheet - summoning order - court finds that, civil dispute is pending between mother of opposite party no. 2 and co-accused - admittedly, the applicant is neither the seller nor the buyer of the property in dispute, co-accused, is the intended purchaser of the property and the applicant is only alleged to be the witness to the agreement to sell allegedly executed by mother of opposite party no. 2 in favour of co-accused - applicant claimed that only his name has been mentioned in block letters as attesting witness in the disputed agreement to sell, he has not signed the same - he had no interest in the property - it is co-accused who is in possession over property in dispute - held, no criminal liability can be attributed to the applicant for allegedly attesting as unregistered agreement to sell allegedly executed by mother of opposite party no. 2 in favour of co-accused unless there is allegation of conspiracy under section 120-B IPC -hence, investigation conducted against applicant is on the basis of St.ment of coaccused and submission of supplementary charge-sheet on its basis were in accordance with law - but no offence is made out against the applicant from the allegations of fact on record - Application is allowed. (Para - 18, 19, 21) Application u/s 482 allowed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: 1. Vinay Tyagi Vs Irshad Ali & ors.(2013 vol. 5 SCC 762), 2. Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya & ors.Vs St. of Guj. & anr.(2019 vol. 17 SCC 1), 3. Peethambaran Vs St. of Kerala & anr.(Criminal appeal no. 1381/2023), 4. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), 5. Rama Chaudhary Vs St. of Bihar (2009 vol. 6 SCC 346), 6. Dharampal Vs St. of Har. (2016 vol. 4 SCC 160), (Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.) 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of the supplementary charge-sheet dated 28.8.2016 and summoning order dated 28.9.2016 in Case Crime No. 203 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Juhi and District Kanpur Nagar alongwith entire proceedings of the case. 2. An FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 02.6.2014 before police station alleging that she is living in U.S.A.