Mohd. Habib Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1116014
CourtUttaranchal High Court
Decided OnMay-15-2013
Case NumberC-482 No. 1251 of 2012
JudgeALOK SINGH
AppellantMohd. Habib
RespondentState of Uttarakhand and Others
Excerpt:
alok singh, j (oral) petitioner has invoked inheritant jurisdiction of this court for quashing of entire proceedings of criminal case no. 09 of 2009 “state vs. madan mohan karnatak and others under section 420, 471 and 120-b of i.p.c., registered at p.s. kotwali, almora, district-almora. brief facts of the case are that inter alia that a first information report was lodged on 13.05.2006 by the s.d.m. almora stating therein that rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousands) were sanctioned to be paid to sultani begum w/o noor khan r/o n.t.d., almora from the discretionary fund of honble the chief minister. however, present petitioner along with sanover khan and madan mohan karnatak by playing fraud and manipulation have illegally received the amount which was sanctioned to be paid to sultani begum. mr. d.c.s. rawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that smt. sultani begum was interrogated by the investigation officer and her statement was recorded under section 161 cr.p.c., wherein she has stated that she herself has received rs. 15,000/- sanctioned in her favour. he further submit that smt. sultani begum has also filed an affidavit before the district magistrate and district superintendent of police, almora stating therein that she herself has received of rs. 15,000/-, which was sanctioned in her feavour to be paid from the chief minsiter, discretionary fund. learned counsel for the petitioner further contend that in view of the admission of smt. sultani begum that she herself received the amount in her favour, no case is made out against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 420, 471 and 120-b of i.p.c. i have carefully perused the affidavit filed by smt. sultain begum as well as her statement recorded by investigating officer. the only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused has received rs. 15,000/- which were sanctioned in favour of smt. sultani begum. in my considered opinion, if rs. 15,000/- were received by smt. sultani begum than there was no occasion for the petitioner to receive same amount. therefore, in my consider opinion no offence is made out against the present petitioner. the inheritant power of this court under section 482 cr.p.c. must be exercised to prevent unnecessary prosecution and to secure the ends of justice. in the above circumstances, asking the petition to face the trial would amount to permitting the prosecution to abuse the process of court. moreover, if no offences is made out against the petitioner no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the prosecution alive. consequently, present petition is allowed. the criminal case no. 09 of 2009 “state vs. madan mohan karnatak and others under section 420, 471 and 120-b of i.p.c., registered at p.s. kotwali, almora, district-almora pending in the court of judicial magistrate, almora is hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
Judgment:

Alok Singh, J (Oral)

Petitioner has invoked inheritant jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of entire proceedings of criminal case no. 09 of 2009 “State Vs. Madan Mohan Karnatak and others under Section 420, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali, Almora, District-Almora.

Brief facts of the case are that inter alia that a first information report was lodged on 13.05.2006 by the S.D.M. Almora stating therein that Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands) were sanctioned to be paid to Sultani Begum W/o Noor Khan R/o N.T.D., Almora from the discretionary fund of Honble The Chief Minister. However, present petitioner along with Sanover Khan and Madan Mohan Karnatak by playing fraud and manipulation have illegally received the amount which was sanctioned to be paid to Sultani Begum.

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that Smt. Sultani Begum was interrogated by the investigation officer and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that she herself has received Rs. 15,000/- sanctioned in her favour. He further submit that Smt. Sultani Begum has also filed an affidavit before the District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Police, Almora stating therein that she herself has received of Rs. 15,000/-, which was sanctioned in her feavour to be paid from the Chief Minsiter, discretionary fund.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contend that in view of the admission of Smt. Sultani Begum that she herself received the amount in her favour, no case is made out against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 420, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C.

I have carefully perused the affidavit filed by Smt. Sultain Begum as well as her statement recorded by Investigating Officer. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused has received Rs. 15,000/- which were sanctioned in favour of Smt. Sultani Begum. In my considered opinion, if Rs. 15,000/- were received by Smt. Sultani Begum than there was no occasion for the petitioner to receive same amount.

Therefore, in my consider opinion no offence is made out against the present petitioner. The inheritant power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised to prevent unnecessary prosecution and to secure the ends of justice.

In the above circumstances, asking the petition to face the trial would amount to permitting the prosecution to abuse the process of court. Moreover, if no offences is made out against the petitioner no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the prosecution alive.

Consequently, present petition is allowed. The criminal case no. 09 of 2009 “State Vs. Madan Mohan Karnatak and others under Section 420, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali, Almora, District-Almora pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Almora is hereby quashed qua the petitioner.