RAMJYOTI MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application hits been preferred by Ramjyoti Misra and Deokinandan praying that the complaint as well as all proceedings in Case No. 488 of 1980 under Sections 420 and 109 IPC may be quashed. It would appear that charges against both the applicants have been framed as per Annexure B. The charge against Ramjyoti Misra is under Section 420 IPC while charge against Deokinandan is under Section 109 IPC. It is urged that there are no materials against the applicants for any charge and any case is not made out and the criminal proceeding is unnecessarily prolonged with a corresponding harassment to the applicants. The case of Khacheru Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1982 SC 784 is an authority for the proposition that the trial court ordinarily should be left unobstrcuted in proceeding with the trial and when the very pleas can be raised before the trial court they should better be taken there. There are, however, other authorities cited before this Court in which at different stages interference was made in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. In the case of R. P. Kapur. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 886 certain guidelines have been laid down where interference can be made which are as follows :

(2.) ANOTHER case cited by the applicants' counsel is the case of Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi, 1979 SC 850. In that case it was held that where dispute raised was purely of civil nature and criminal proceeding initiated was an abuse of the process of the court the complaint deserves to be quashed. In that case the allegations made were examined, the infirmities were pointed out and it was then in that context that the Court held that criminal prosecution deserves to be quashed. In fact, from the body of the judgment it would appear that the Supreme Court was also of the view that the allegations lacked the ingredients of the offence of forgery or the like. Reliance was also placed upon the cases of Ayoob Husain v. Matiin Ashraf, 1979 ACrR 70, Ram Niwas v. Zafar Abbas, 1978 ACrR 17 and Mjs. Prestolite of India v. Munsif and Magistrate Hawaii, 1978 ACrR 128. In the case of Ham Niwas v. Zafar Abbas, 1978 ACrR 17 proceeding was quashed at the stage of evidence itself. In the other two cases proceedings were quashed at the stage of charge and summoning respectively. These citations were made to convass that if otherwise it is a suitable case for quashing proceeding the stage of proceedings would be immaterial and the proceeding can be quashed at any stage. I invited counsel's attention to the case of Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1983 SC 67 and in particular to the following observations :

(3.) AS regards Ramjyoti Misra, the allegations in the FIR are that the complainant paid Rs. 1700/- to Ramjyoti Misra for admission in Hindu Public Coaching College, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur for B. Ed. examination on 1-10-1978 and at that time Deokinandan who is a student of that Institute and also its incharge was present and Sri Ramjyoti Misra told the complainant that the examination would take place in March 1979 and is demanding Rs. 1300/-. It is further recited that no examination of any student admitted for B. A. coaching earlier has taken so far and the complainant believes that a cheating is being practiced by the Principal, Sri Ramjyoti Misra and he has run away with the money. It was further alleged that Sri Deokinandan was present who is termed as Vice-Principal of the Institution. It was further stated that no receipt was issued inspite of repeated demands and reminders by Ramjyoti Misra for the sum of Rs. 500/- paid to him by the complainant. The complainant wants refund of his money i.e. Rs. 2200./-. The Principal Sri Ramjyoti Misra is doing publicity in papers concerning admission and the applicants later got aware that the Principal is actually practising cheating in this manner. If these allegations are taken to be correct they may disclose a prima facie case. A charge sheet was submitted by the police and a charge has been framed as Annexure B under Section 420 IPC against Ramjyoti Misra. Annexure C is the statement of Narendra Prasad who has lodged the complaint. Annexure D is the statement of Surendra Pratap Singh. Surendra Pratap Singh has stated that the institution is not registered as such and the figures shown are fictitious.