KAILASH NATH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is facing the trial in Criminal Case No. 1218 of 2003, State Vs. Kailash Nath Gupta, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B of I.P.C. pending in the court of C.J.M., Tehri Garhwal has prayed to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. Heard Sri P.M.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Prabha Noniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1, Sri Anil Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no evidence which may indicate that any forged document was prepared by the petitioner. The Investigation Officer could not collect any evidence to this effect, which may indicate that the prima facie case under Sections 467, 468 of I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. He has further submitted that in order to constitute the offence under Section 120 -B of I.P.C. there must be some other person with whom the petitioner had entered into criminal conspiracy and that evidence is still missing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even if the entire allegations are taken into consideration, on the basis of the averment, made in the complaint, the matter is of civil nature and the civil dispute with regard to the allegation made in the complaint, it still pending before the competent court of jurisdiction in the civil side. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is absolutely abuse of process of court.

(3.) HAVING considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that at the time of exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence collected during the course of the investigation. The evidence has to be placed by the parties before the trial court and the matter will finally be adjudicated by the trial court. However, the petitioner has still an opportunity to raise this plea before the court concerned at the time of framing the charge and in case, court concerned come to the conclusion there is no evidence available by way of the document produced before the court, the court concerned may decide the matter in accordance with law.