Puran Chandra Dalakoti vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—By means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 12.11.2013 and the proceedngs of Criminal Case No. 48/2014 pending in the court of C.J.M., District Nainital (arising out of FIR No. 31/2012, under sections 192, 193, 415, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 IPC). An FIR was lodged by respondent No. 3 against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 192, 193,420, 415, 465, 467, 468, 464, 463 IPC. After the investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 192, 193, 415, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 IPC. The applicant-accused was summoned accordingly to face the trial for the said offences.

Aggrieved against the same, present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant.

According to the complainant (respondent No. 3 herein), he received an information on 25.1.2011 from Public Information Officer, PWD, Nainital that the applicant, who is posted in the headquarter at Ramgarh, purchased two stamp papers of Rs. 50/- each from Tehsil Nainital on 3.4.2006, prepared a notarized power of attorney on such stamp-papers on the selfsame day, i.e., 3.4.2006. The signatures of Han Nandan, Hari Ballabh, Mahesh Chandra, Devki Nandan, Mohan Chandra, Puran Chandra, Jeewan Chandra, Han Nandan and Hem Chandra were forged on such power of attorney. The applicant, in connivance with the then Gram Pradhan, with intent to take undue advantage from a public servant and to make money dishonestly, fabricated false documents, knowingly it fully well that those persons have not appended their signatures on such power of attorney. It was also written in the complaint by respondent No. 3 that he is well aware of the signatures of Hari Nandan and others, and therefore, he knows that these signatures were forged. The accused-applicant also got the sale-deed of land executed by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD in favour of the State of Uttarakhand and thereby obtained bank drafts of Rs. 99,000/- and Rs. 33,600/- in favour of co-sharers of the land towards the compensation of the land from the PWD. The said amount was awarded to the accused persons, therefore, according to the complainant, the accused persons have committed the Penal Offences.

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted, among other things, that Hari Nandan is the father of respondent No. 3 and that is why he was well aware of the signatures of his father. Hari Nandan was the co-sharer of land for which the compensation was awarded. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 further submitted that prima facie, the offences complained of against the applicant are made out and, therefore, he was rightly summoned on the basis of the charge-sheet. According to learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3, the disputed signatures of Han Nandan were also examined with his admitted signatures by the handwriting expert and the FSL report has been brought by the Investigating Officer on record. The FSL reported that the signatures of Hari Nandan on the disputed document were different from the specimen signature. Characteristic features of Hari Nandan''s signature on admitted document and questioned document were different.

Learned Counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, submitted that a similar complaint was filed by respondent No. 3 in 2012 before the C.J.M, Nainital and the same was dismissed. Subsequent thereto, the present complaint was filed by respondent No. 3 again on the basis of same set of facts. Learned Counsel for the applicant has prayed that the FIR lodged on behalf of the respondent No. 3 is the abuse of process of the Court and, therefore, this Court should intervene in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 apprised the Court that the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No. 3 in 2012 before the C.J.M. was against other persons and not against the present applicant. In other words, the said application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was not filed against the present applicant.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, (2012) 4 JCC 2885 : (2012) 9 JT 329 : (2012) 9 JT 312 : (2012) 9 SCALE 58 : (2012) 9 SCC 460 has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the principles is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the. basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the Courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. Another very significant caution that the Courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of Court leading to injustice.

When factual foundation of any offence is laid against the accused-applicant, then this Court should not intervene in exercise of it''s inherent jurisdiction. It is a well settled law that the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified tests specifically laid down in the Section. On a bare reading of the FIR, as also the charge-sheet, there appears to be no illegality in the summoning of the applicant in so far as the offences under sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 IPC (except sections 192 and 193 IPC) are concerned. At this stage, no interference is called for against the summoning of applicant under sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, IPC.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 2 AD 69 : (2013) CriLJ 1272 : (2013) 1 Crimes 169 : (2014) 1 DMC 644 : (2013) 2 JT 209 : (2013) 1 RCR(Criminal) 911 : (2013) 1 SCALE 665 : (2013) 3 SCC 330 : (2013) AIRSCW 784 : (2013) 1 Supreme 435 held as follows:

"28. 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 defences 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 the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held."

Prima facie, the offences punishable under sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 IPC are made out against the applicant. This Court is of the opinion that trial against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 192, 193 IPC should not proceed, inasmuch as, the Executive Engineer, PWD (public servant) has nowhere levelled such allegations against the applicant, even during the course of investigation. In other words, the applicant will face the trial for the offences for which the charge-sheet was submitted against him, but not under sections 192 and 193 IPC.

Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed in so far as the summoning of the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 IPC is concerned. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed to the extent that no offences are made out against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 192 and 193 IPC.

The applicant is, however, granted liberty to raise all factual and legal pleas before the Trial Court for the purpose of seeking his discharge or acquittal at an appropriate stage. Learned Counsel for the applicant made an innocuous prayer that the court below be directed to decide the bail application of the applicant as expeditiously as possible, subject to his surrender. Considering the grounds taken up in the petition and the allegations levelled against the applicant, coupled with the aforesaid observations, this Court feels that the innocuous prayer made by learned Counsel for the applicant is worth accepting. It is provided that if the applicant surrenders before the Trial Court within three weeks from today and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided by the Court concerned as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay.