# Vidya Sagar Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 403
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-04-22
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1298 of 2006
- **Bench:** Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vidya-sagar-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46884
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 260, 263-Ka, 419, 420,
407, 468, 471 , exercise of powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception
and not the rule - evidence of accusedapplicants 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. (Para - 6,7)

Accused-applicants
filed
fake
stamp
of
respective amounts - on which Vendors name
was disclosed as Randhir Singh, license no. 321
- 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
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
- Investigating Officer, found sufficient evidence
and after completion of investigation, submitted
charges
sheet
against
the
accusedapplicants.(Para -5)

HELD: - In view the facts and legal proposition
discussed hereinabove, there is no illegality or
irregularity, legal or otherwise, warranting
interference in the submission of charge-sheet.
It is not a case of grave injustice. No good
ground to quash the charge-sheet. (Para - 13)

Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

3 All. Vidya Sagar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
403

15. The present application moved by
the accused-applicant is, thus, maintainable
to enforce the earlier order of this Court
dated 22.4.2019 so as to prevent the abuse
of process of the Court as the court of
Magistrate after rejection of revision has
issued Non-bailable Warrant against the
accused-applicants.

16. In exercise of it's inherent power,
the Court deems fit in the circumstances of
the case to issue suo moto direction to the
Court of Magistrate under Section 483
Cr.P.C. to commit the Case Crime
No.127/2003 under Section 307/34, 506
I.P.C., Police Station- Hasanganj, District -
Unnao forthwith without any further delay,
complying the requirements under Section
207 Cr.P.C. alongwith the application of
the accused applicants moved for the
purpose of their discharge.

17. The accused-applicants are
directed to appear through counsel before
the Court of Sessions on 15.3.2021 and
they are at liberty to renew their prayer for
discharge from offences through a fresh
application before the Sessions Court (trial
court).

18. The Non-bailable warrant issued
by the Court of Magistrate in Case
No.261/2020, Case Crime No.127/2003
under Sections 307/34, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station- Hasanganj, District- Unnao shall
remain in abeyance till then.

19. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of,
accordingly.

20. The Deputy Registrar (Criminal)
is directed to communicate the order
promptly, in addition to normal course of
communication as prescribed in the rules of
the court through e-mail also, to the
Sessions Court and also to the Court of
Magistrate for compliance. The compliance
report be ensured to place before the court.
----------
(2021)03ILR A403
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1298 of 2006

Vidya Sagar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Paramatma Rai, Sri A.B. Saran, Sri Amit
Kumar Singh, Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Sri
Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri S.P.S. Parmar, Sri
Shailendra Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri D.B. Yadav

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 260, 263-Ka, 419, 420,
407, 468, 471 , exercise of powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception
and not the rule - evidence of accusedapplicants 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. (Para - 6,7)

Accused-applicants
filed
fake
stamp
of
respective amounts - on which Vendors name
was disclosed as Randhir Singh, license no. 321
- 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
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
- Investigating Officer, found sufficient evidence
and after completion of investigation, submitted
charges
sheet
against
the
accusedapplicants.(Para -5)

HELD: - In view the facts and legal proposition
discussed hereinabove, there is no illegality or
irregularity, legal or otherwise, warranting
interference in the submission of charge-sheet.
It is not a case of grave injustice. No good
ground to quash the charge-sheet. (Para - 13)

Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Rajiv Thapar & ors. Vs Madan Lal Kapoor,
(2013) 3 SCC 330 Supreme Court

2. Rajesh Bajaj Vs State NCT of Delhi & ors.,
(1999) 3 SCC 259

3. Md. Allauddin Khan Vs The St. of Bihar &
ors., (2019) 6 SCC 107

4. M. Jayanthi Vs K.R. Meenakshi & anr.,
Criminal Appeal No. 1817 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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,
3 All. Vidya Sagar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
405
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 a stage of evaluating
the
truthfulness
or
otherwise
of
allegations
levelled
by
the
prosecution/complainant
against
the
accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for
determining how weighty the defence
raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if
the accused is successful in showing some
suspicion or doubt, in the allegations
levelled by the prosecution/complainant,
it would be impermissible to discharge
the accused before trial. This is so,
because it would result in giving finality
to the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant,
without
allowing
the
prosecution
or
the
complainant to adduce evidence
to
substantiate the same. The converse is,
however, not true, because even if trial is
proceeded with, the accused is not
subjected
to
any
irreparable
consequences. The accused would still be
in a position to succeed, by establishing
his defences by producing evidence in
accordance with law. There is an endless
list of judgments rendered by this Court
declaring the legal position, that in a
case where the prosecution/complainant
has levelled allegations bringing out all
ingredients of charge(s) levelled, and
have placed material before the Court,
prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of
the allegations levelled, trial must be
held."

9. A look at allegations made in First
Information Report would show that
victim/opposite party herein, incorporated
the ingredients necessary for prosecuting
the accused-applicants for the offence
alleged.
The
question
whether
the
complainant will be able to prove the
allegation in the manner known to law or
accused/applicants
were
bona
fide
purchaser of the impugned stamps and they
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have purchased for consideration, would
arise only at a later stage after the evidence
is adduced by the parties. It cannot be said
that prima-facie case is made out against
the applicants.

10. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of
Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court
has held that it is not necessary that a
complainant should verbatim reproduce in
the body of his complaint all the
ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If
the factual foundation for the offence has
been laid in the complaint, the court should
not hasten to quash criminal proceedings
during the investigation stage merely on the
premise that one or two ingredients have
not been stated with details.

11. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The
State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC
107, Supreme Court observed as to what
should be examined by High Court in an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :

"15. The High Court should have
seen that when a specific grievance of the
appellant in his complaint was that
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed
the offences punishable under Sections 323,
379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the
question to be examined is as to whether
there are allegations of commission of
these two offences in the complaint or not.
In other words, in order to see whether any
prima facie case against the accused for
taking its cognizable is made out or not, the
Court is only required to see the
allegations made in the complaint. In the
absence of any finding recorded by the
High Court on this material question, the
impugned order is legally unsustainable.

16. The second error is that the
High Court in para 6 held that there are
contradictions in the statements of the
witnesses on the point of occurrence.

17. In our view, the High Court
had no jurisdiction to appreciate the
evidence of the proceedings under Section
482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether
there
are
contradictions
or/and
inconsistencies in the statements of the
witnesses is essentially an issue relating to
appreciation of evidence and the same can
be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate
during trial when the entire evidence is
adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to
come in this case."(emphasis added)

12. Recently, Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 1817 of 2019 (M. Jayanthi Vs.
K.R. Meenakshi and another) decided on
02.12.2019 has held as under :-

"9. It is too late in the day to seek
reference
to
any
authority
for
the
proposition that while invoking the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a
complaint or a charge, the Court should
not embark upon an enquiry into the
validity of the evidence available. All that
the Court should see is as to whether there
are allegations in the complaint which form
the basis for the ingredients that constitute
certain offences complained of. The Court
may also be entitled to see (i) whether the
preconditions
requisite
for
taking
cognizance have been complied with or
not; and (ii) whether the allegations
contained in the complaint, even if
accepted in entirety, would not constitute
the offence alleged."

13. Having considered the rival
submissions made by learned Counsel for
parties and keeping in view the facts and
legal proposition discussed hereinabove, I
do not see any illegality or irregularity,
3 All. Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
407
legal or otherwise, warranting interference
in the submission of charge-sheet. It is not
a case of grave injustice. No good ground
to quash the charge-sheet.

14. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.

15. It is however, provided that if the
applicants move an application for discharge
at proper stage, same shall be heard and
decided by the court concerned preferably
and expeditiously within three months in
accordance with law, considering the material
facts
and
evidence
collected
by
the
Investigating Officer during investigation and
plea raised by accused-applicants.
----------
(2021)03ILR A407
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2162 of 2016

Sanjay Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Aishwini Kumar, Sri Ganesh Shanker
Srivastava, Sri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 & Negotiable
Instrument
Act,
1881-Sections
138quashing of entire proceeding-admitted fact
of issuance of cheque is there, dishonour of
it
by
bank
concerned-notice
to
accused/applicant
by
complainant
by
registered post is there - cheque was issued
by the company-complaint has not been
filed against the company - the applicant
had signed the cheque as its authorized
signatory-the company had not been made
party accused-no vicarious liability can be
imposed
on
the
accused-applicantcomplaint
cannot
proceed
against the
applicant in his personal capacity-Hence,
prima facie case, is not made out against the
applicant u/s 138 r/w section 141 of the
Act-order under challenge deserves to be
quashed.(Para 2 to 46)

B. In exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC
High Court would not embark upon an
enquiry whether the allegations in the
complaint are likely to be established by
evidence or not.it has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution and
only when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down in the section
itself. (Para 42)

C. Before a Magistrate taking cognizance
of an offence u/s 138/141 of the N.I. Act,
making a person vicariously liable has to
ensure strict compliance of the statutory
requirements.to settle the scores between
the parties which are more in the nature
of a civil dispute, the parties cannot be
permitted to put the criminal law into
motion and courts cannot be a mere
spectator to it. (Para 43)

The Application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Aneeta Hada Vs M/s Godfather Travels &
Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661

2. Harihara Krishnan Vs J Thomas, (2018) 13
SCC 663

3. Harshendra Kumar D. Vs Rebatilata Koley,
(2011) 3 SCC 351

4. Anita Malhotra V.s Apparel Export Promotion
Council & anr., (2012) 1 SCC 520

5. Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Vs St. of Mah. &
anr. (2015) 88 ACC 613