Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mahendra Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3449 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 4591 (21 October 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




Mahendra Singh...............................Applicant.


State of U.P. and others.....................Opposite party.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet submitted in case crime no. 6 of 2001 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. read with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 3/4 Price, Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mau.

Facts giving rise to the dispute is that on 20.1.2000, opposite party no.2 Branch Manager Sanyukt Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sahadatpura, Mau moved an application in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.  for registering a case against the two account holders namely Surendra Kumar and Ram Narayan.  The name of the present applicant did not figure in the said application. An order was passed directing the police to register a case and investigate.  It appears that order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau was not complied with, as a consequence another application was also moved at the instance of the opposite party no.2 on 10.11.2000 apprising the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau regarding non-compliance of his earlier order,  the C.J.M. Mau called for a report from S.H.O Kotwali vide order dated 25.11.2000. A report dated 3.1.2001 was forwarded from P.S. Kotwali to the C.J.M. Mau stating therein that the opposite party no.2 has moved an application only with a view to defend himself and misled the department.  The C.J.M. Mau passed an order on 4.1.2001  directing the police to register a case and investigate in the light of his earlier order dated 20.1.2000.  It was clearly stated in the order that in the event, the police comes to a conclusion that the opposite party no. 2 is also involved in the crime, he can also be arrayed as an accused.  In pursuance to the order dated 4.1.2001, an F.I.R. was registered against two named accused Surendra Kumar and Ram Narayan  at case crime no. 6/2001 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Mau on 9.1.2001. A copy of the same has been annexed as annexure no.1 to the affidavit filed in support of this application.  It has been averred in para no.12 of the affidavit that later, the applicant came to know that Investigating Officer is involving him in the case and, therefore, a criminal revision was preferred by the applicant in this Court whereby arrest of the applicant was stayed till submission of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.   A charge sheet was submitted by the police on 26.3.2001 against the applicant and two others Durga Vijai Singh, Officer of the Bank, Shyam Narain Singh, who is relative of Durga Vijai Singh.  A copy of the same has been annexed as annexure no.2 to the affidavit filed in support of this application.  The present applicant is a Balancing Clerk in the Bank and fraud came into picture on 5.1.2000 at the time of balancing.  An amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lac) was withdrawn between the period commencing from 16.6.1998 to 30.1.1999 through eighteen bearer cheques issued by the account holders, whose signatures were also available in the record of the Bank and the opposite party no.2 had verified the signatures. The signatures on the cheques were identified by Ram Narayan and verified by the opposite party no.2 but the Investigating Officer has not submitted any charge sheet against those two persons.  The involvement of the present applicant in the criminal case is on the basis of a statement given by the opposite party no.2 to the effect that signatures made at the back of the cheques had close similarity with the handwriting of the applicant.  Submission is that handwriting was never got examined through handwriting expert and the applicant has been involved in the case.  Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence that any amount was received by the applicant even in the statement made by the opposite party no.2.  A charge sheet was submitted before the C.J.M. Mau on 26.3.2001 and without issuing summons, the court issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant on 24.5.2001.   This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet, at the time of admission, this Court had passed specific order on 10.7.2001 directing the A.G.A. to file counter affidavit disclosing whether any material could be collected during investigation to substantiate the involvement of the present applicant.   Leaned A.G.A. appearing for the State has filed counter affidavit, wherein para no.14 it has been averred that handwriting was got examined by the handwriting expert, who has reported that the signature is that of the present applicant.  Besides, other employees of the Bank have also substantiated this fact but no report of handwriting expert has been annexed along with counter affidavit.  This fact has specifically been disputed in para no.12 of the rejoinder affidavit where it has clearly been stated that

"No signature was got examined by the O.P. No.3, Investigating Officer by Govt. handwriting specialist.  Neither any report of Govt. handwriting specialist has been filed by O.P. No.3 with the counter affidavit nor had been filed with charge sheet.  In fact, services of Govt. handwriting specialist was never taken.  No Bank employee has certified that there is signature of deponent upon the Bank of cheque.

In the circumstances, the order passed by this Court on 10.7.2001 does not appear to be complied with and no such material collected during investigation has been brought on record to substantiate involvement of the present applicant.  It is evident that opposite party no.3 Ram Bahadur Singh, Sub Inspector P.S. Kotwali, District Mau has filed counter affidavit cursorily without bringing any document or any incriminating fact to the notice of the Court that the present applicant has been involved in the instant crime.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this application with following directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau:

(1) To give an opportunity to the applicant to move an application for discharge.  In the event, such an application is moved within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant by means of a reasoned order.

(2) The C.J.M. shall take into account the materials collected against the applicant during investigation and also ascertain as to why the other accused opposite party no.2 and Ram Narayan were exonerated.

(3) Whether the Investigating Officer has obtained a report from Govt. handwriting expert to ascertain that signatures on the cheques were of the present applicant.

(4) Till the application for discharge is finally decided, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.