Court No. - 49 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34552 of 2009 Petitioner :- Manish Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Rajeev Siodia Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
charge sheet dated 14.06.2009 in Case No. 2538 of 2009 (State v Manish
Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2009 under Sections 420, 467,
468, 323, 504, 506 and 384 IPC, PS Modinagar, District Ghaziabad pending
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Ghazibad.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no. 2
has initiated the present criminal proceedings on the ground that by forging
the documents his house has fraudulently been shown to be purchased by the
applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant states thatopposite party no. 2
sold the house in question to the applicant, which is authenticated by the
agreement, copy of which has been annexed as annexure 4 to the petition. It is
further argued that after the sale deed was executed cheques were also given
to the opposite party no. 2, which were duly encashed by him. It is further
contended that civil dispute is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Ghaziabad vide Case No. 329 of 2009 (Manish Verma v Atmaram).
It is further contended that the agreement, which is filed as annexure 4 to the
petition is not a registered agreement.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the
case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question
of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law
laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-
10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be
considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge
under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may through a proper
application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in
the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the aforesaid charge sheet of the aforesaid case is
refused.
However, it is directed that the applicant shall appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail
shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in
the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57)
ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For
a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant
of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the
applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court
below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally dispose off.
Order Date :- 1.2.2010
shailesh