AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.C. Kandpal, J.—By way of this petition, u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of the orders dated 20-5-2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/III F.T.C. Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2003 and the order dated 21-12-2001, passed by C.J.M. Dehradun, in criminal Case No. 3495 of 2001, State v. H.N. Chaturvedi and Ors., Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B, 458 I.P.C.
Brief facts of the case, as per the averments made in the petition, are that the respondent No. 2 moved an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 20-6-2000 before Addl. C.J.M. Dehradun against the applicant and some other persons. The A.C.J.M. passed order for investigation. The police, registered a case and started investigation in the matter and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the applicant and one Dr. P.K. Khattar and sent the same to the Court. The learned C.J.M. on receipt of charge sheet, took cognizance against the applicant and the co-accused, vide impugned order dated 21.12.2001, against which criminal revision No. 32/2003 was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, who vide order dated 20-5-2004 dismissed the revision. The petitioner has filed the petition to quash the aforesaid orders on the ground that the applicant has been implicated in the case with collusion of police in order to harass him. The police in a mechanical way submitted charge sheet against the accused/applicant without considering the material collected during the investigation. It is also alleged that the learned Magistrate while summoning the accused/applicant did not apply its mind and in a routine way passed the order. The revisional order was also challenged on the ground that the learned revisional Court also failed to consider and evaluate the evidence collected during the investigation and rejected the revision in a summary way.
The respondent No. 2 filed counter affidavit and denied the allegations made in the petition. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that the police after finding prima facie case against the petitioner and the co-accused, submitted charge sheet. The learned Magistrate as well as the revisional court have passed the orders after considering the charge sheet and other material collected during investigation andThis Court in proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can not adjudicate the evidence. No abuse of process of court has been there in passing the impugned orders and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, I do not find any substance in this petition.
The disputed facts cannot be adjudged in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. I am anot supposed to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint/F.I.R. are likely to be established by evidence or not. The police after thorough investigation and finding prima facie case against the petitioner and the co-accused, submitted charge sheet. No abuse of process of Court has been committed in the submission of the charge sheet as well as in passing the impugned order by the learned Magistrate and the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 CR.L.J. 527, has observed that''High Court is not justified in going into the disputed question of fact by appreciating the documents and evidence produced before it by treating them as evidence to hold the accused person as innocent because it will amount to pre-trial of a criminal case under inherent powers of the Court.'' The Hon''ble Apex Court in the same judgment has also observed that -''High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. The High Court may only examine whether the F.I.R. or the complaint or the material collected by prosecution taken on their face value and accepted in entirety, prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused person.''
The Hon''ble Apex Court in an another case State of Bihar Vs. Raj Narain Singh, , has observed that-''High Court prejudging police papers and having found discrepancies etc in them and quashing a pending criminal case would be improper.''
In view of the above observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons recorded above, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 7.6.2004, stands vacated.