Usha Bhatnagar vs State of Uttaranchal and others

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this application, moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been advanced to quash the chargesheet dated 7.5.2005 and the order of cognizance passed thereupon dated 20.6.2005 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in criminal case no.1268 of 2005, State Vs. Surendra Kumar and another. The above chargesheet for the offence of Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, pertaining to P.S. Kotwali, District Haridwar, has arisen out of lodging of the FIR by respondent no.3-Jagdish Swaroop Bhatnagar on 28.1.2004 against the accused Usha Bhatnagar and her husband Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar.

The crux of the facts, as entailed in the FIR, is that informer Jagdish Swaroop Bhatnagar was superannuated from government service sometime in 1996 and the accused persons were well acquainted to the informer, being in his relationship too. Smt. Usha Bhatnagar happened to be the Agent of Post-Office Small Saving Schemes, so she, along with her husband Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar, persuaded the informer to deposit a handsome amount of wherewithal, which he had received at the time of his retirement. The informer was convinced, so he invested the amount in the post-office at the instigation of Usha Bhatnagar along with her husband. At times, Smt. Usha Bhatnagar returned the interest earned by the informer at his deposits after procuring the signature of the investor. This all developed a relationship of trust too between Jagdish Swaroop Bhatnagar on the one hand and the accused persons on the other. The default was committed by Usha Bhatnagar in making the payments while she had already secured the signatures of informer on so many complicated proformas, required to be fulfilled for submission in the post-office to seek various advantages and returns. This resulted into lodging of the instant FIR which ended into the submission of chargesheet after completion of investigation, as above.

It is pertinent to mention here that challenging the said chargesheet and the cognizance order, both husband and wife filed separate petitions; one being petition no.499 of 2005 filed by Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar while the other being petition No.558 of 2005 (instant one) filed by Usha Bhatnagar. Both the petitions remained pending in the court and at one occasion, both were dismissed in non-prosecution by this Court on 5.7.2010.

Smt. Usha Bhatnagar has got this petition restored to its original number after running to the level of the Apex Court while Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar has not moved any restoration application so far. So, this Court has given hearing to the instant petition filed by Usha Bhatnagar only.

It is also pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the instant petition, Jagdish Swaroop Bhatnagar has breathed his last and his widow Smt. Laxmi Bhatnagar moved a miscellaneous application no.1305/11 for substituting her name in place of her husband. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2011 and the name of Smt. Laxmi Bhatnagar was directed to substituted in place of her husband Jagdish Swaroop Bhatnagar.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner''s counsel that with the same facts, a complaint case no.310 of 2003 was filed by Jagdish Swaroop Bhatnagar against Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar on 16.9.2003 for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and one punishable u/s 420 IPC, and in that case, the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate only for the offence of Section 138 of the Act, and that the said complaint case also resulted into the conviction of Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar, whereagainst the appeal is pending. He has relied upon a precedent of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of " Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and Another, ", wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has discussed the scope of Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. r/w Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Therein, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that where the appellant was convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, then he could not have been again tried or punished on the same facts u/s 420 IPC or any other provision of IPC or any other Statute.

The precedent relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has got no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the instant petition, inasmuch as, the facts divulged in the complaint case no.310 of 2003, though had the context of all the facts, as stated in the FIR dated 28.1.2004, but primarily, the said complaint was concentrated for dishonour of the cheque issued by Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar on 15.7.2003. Therewithal, manifestation of the facts of cheating in different references between the parties was a background which had inevitably been disclosed, but the prayer was centrally confined to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/-, which is the amount of Cheque.

Fortiori, the complaint was filed only against Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar and not against Smt. Usha Bhatnagar, who played a vital and pivotal role in the entire case of cheating and manipulation of signatures of informer on various proformas. Therefore, the chargesheet has been submitted for different references, not only for the offence of Cheating u/s 419/420 IPC but also for the offence of Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. That apart, the statement of N.R. Joshi, Deputy Post-master, recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. can also significantly be taken note of while assessing the submission of the chargesheet against the accused persons.

The trial of the accused persons involves the determination of so many facts which can only be done in the trial court and it is a settled principle of law that this Court cannot enter into the meticulous examination of all the facts while adjudicating the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. So, this petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed accordingly. Trial court is directed to proceed with the trial ahead.