AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Code of Criminal Procedure), is directed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1802 of 2009 pending before Ist Addl. CJM, Haridwar u/s 406/420 IPC and summoning order dated 24.12.2009 passed thereon also be quashed.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
In nutshell, the case is that an application u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the complainant before the trial court stating therein that the Petitioners agreed to sell the plot in question to him against the sale consideration of Rs. 1.35 lacs, for which the Respondent No. 2 also gave Rs. 30,000/- in cash and Rs. 1.02 lacs through three cheques, Rs. 77,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively and these cheques were also been encashed, and as such Rs. 1.32 lacs were given by the complainant to the Petitioners while Rs. 3,000/- was agreed to be given at the time of execution of sale deed. The complainant several times asked the Petitioners to get the sale deed executed but they used to refuse him on one pretext or another. Later the complainant came to know that the Petitioners have executed the sale deed in favour of someone else and thereby they grabbed Rs. 1.32 lacs given by him to the Petitioners. The said application u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the Ist Addl. CJM, Haridwar on 7.1.2008, against which the complainant/Respondent No. 2 went in revision which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 2.5.2009 passed by the III FTC/Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar thereby the order dated 7.1.08 was quashed and the matter was remanded to decide it afresh in light of the observations made in the judgment. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.5.2009, learned Ist Addl. CJM, Haridwar directed the In-charge Inspector Kotwali Ranipur to register and investigate the matter and to submit the report. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, charge sheets were filed against the Petitioners u/s 406/420 IPC, on the basis of which the learned Ist Addl. CJM Haridwar vide order dated 24.12.09 summoned the Petitioners u/s 406/420 IPC. Hence this petition.
A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of State therein denying the averments made in the application.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the court below has erred while taking cognizance against them. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the application filed by the complainant/Respondent No. 2 u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, the statement of the complainant and that of witnesses, namely, Rijwan and Abdul Salam recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, who in their statements have amply corroborated the prosecution story, the offences punishable u/s 406/420 IPC prima facie made out against the Petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has rightly took the cognizance and accordingly, rightly summoned the Petitioners to face trial.
Even the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. If the allegations made in the application u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the applicants have rightly been summoned by the trial court. I am also of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court.
For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 21.6.2010 is vacated.