Ateek Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 08.06.2018 in Criminal Case No. 2829 of 2018, State Vs. Ateek Ahmad, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B IPC, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and the entire proceedings arising out from it.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire amount to respondent no.2. Hence, proceedings may be quashed.

According to the FIR in the case, the petitioner prepared a forged agreement to sale in his favour and showing it to the respondent no.2, entered into a transaction to sale the property in question to respondent no.2. He, in fact, took Rs.7,50,000/- on different dates from respondent no.2. Subsequently, it was revealed that the property in question never belonged to the petitioner and he had forged the agreement to sale with regard to property in question. An FIR of the incident was lodged on 28.12.2016 by respondent no.2, in which after investigation, chargesheet under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B IPC has been submitted. On 08.06.2018, cognizance was taken. Now, before this Court what is being argued is that the petitioner is ready to repay the amount, which he had taken from respondent no.2.

The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is exercised in exceptional and rare circumstances. The purpose basically is to prevent abuse of any court or to secure ends of justice and to do the complete justice. The exercise of this jurisdiction is though very wide, but guided with certain principles as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866, State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460.

In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the test for exercising all the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

The allegations is forging of documents, cheating and inducing respondent no.2 to deliver the money and, in fact, having been successful in inducement, Rs.7,50,000/- were taken from respondent no.2 on different dates. Merely, the statement on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the amount, the petitioner is not discharged of his criminality. The allegations in FIR distinctly disclose commission of cognizable offence. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to make any interference and that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

The petition is dismissed.