SRIKANT PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5716 of 2021

Srikant Pandey
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)            :      Sandeep Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :      G.A., Satish Chandra Dubey

Court No. - 79
                 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Satish Chandra Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party No.2
and Sri Durgesh Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing the impugned order dated 02.11.2020 passed by Judicial
Magistrate-Ist, Jaunpur as well as entire proceeding of Crl. Case No.369
of 2020 (State vs. Srikant Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No.583 of
2014, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Sujanganj, District
Jaunpur.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present case due to property dispute
between the parties. The applicant is aged about 72 years and he is
suffering from old age ailments. He further submitted that the opposite
party No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to
which a First Information Report was lodged against the applicant and
other co-accused persons as Case Crime No.583 of 2014, under Sections
419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Sujanganj, District Jaunpur with the
allegations that the applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons,
prepared a forged and fabricated Will deed in his favour and, on that
basis, got his name mutated in the revenue records pertaining to Arazi No.
104 (area 0.081 hectare), situated at Village Kundaha, Tehsil
Machhlishar, District Jaunpur, as well as Arazi No. 414 (area 0.3870
hectare) and Arazi No. 526 (area 0.711 hectare), situated at
Village Bichhur, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. During the course
                                                        A482 No. 5716 of 2021
                               2


of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
witnesses, namely, Vijay Kumar, Mata Prasad, Uma Dutt Pandey, under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the opposite party No. 2 supported
the prosecution case, whereas the other witnesses did not support the
allegations as levelled by the opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted
that after investigation, the Investigating Officer exonerated the other co-
accused persons and submitted a charge sheet only against the present
applicant.

4. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that the applicant had
earlier filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 12725 of
2020 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated
16.09.2020 granting liberty to the applicant to file a discharge application
before the trial court. Pursuant thereto, the applicant filed a discharge
application before the learned Magistrate, however, the same has been
rejected without due consideration of the material on record and passed
the impugned order in routine and mechanical manner. The impugned
order dated 02.11.2020 is arbitrary, erroneous, and contrary to the settled
principles of law, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party
No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of
the applicant and contended that the applicant in collusion with other co-
accused persons, prepared a forged and fabricated Will deed in his favour.
It is further submitted that on the basis of the application moved under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the opposite party No. 2, the aforesaid FIR was
registered. They further submit that the impugned order has been passed
by the learned Magistrate strictly in accordance with law. The charge
sheet has been filed after due investigation and the material collected
therein clearly discloses the commission of offences against the
applicants. There is no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the
impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the present
application is liable to be dismissed.

6. From the record, it transpires that the opposite party No. 2 filed an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant, along
with other co-accused persons, prepared a forged and fabricated Will deed
and, on that basis, the applicant got his name mutated in the revenue
                                                                                            A482 No. 5716 of 2021
                                                                   3


                                    records relating to the aforesaid land. Pursuant thereto, the FIR was
                                    registered as Case Crime No.583 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C.,
                                    Police Station Sujanganj, District Jaunpur. During investigation, the
                                    Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the opposite party No. 2
                                    and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon completion of
                                    investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. was
                                    submitted against the applicant. The applicant thereafter filed a discharge
                                    application before the trial court, which was rejected by the learned
                                    Magistrate vide order dated 02.11.2020 on the ground that a prima facie
                                    case is made out against the applicant.

                                    7. It is a settled principle of law that while considering a discharge
                                    application, the Court is required to form an opinion as to whether a prima
                                    facie case is made out against the accused or not. If the Court finds that a
                                    prima facie case exists against the accused, the discharge application is
                                    liable to be rejected and charges are to be framed accordingly. In the
                                    present case, the discharge application has been rightly rejected.

                                    8. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds
                                    that the learned Magistrate has proceeded in accordance with law. This
                                    Court does not find any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned
                                    order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused.


                                    9. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.



                                                                                         (Chawan Prakash,J.)
                                    April 28, 2026
                                    Md Faisal




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad