A.K.ROOPANWAL, J. - (1.) THIS application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the charge sheet dated 31.7.2004 submitted in Crime No. C-4 of 2004, u/s 420, 409, 471, 472 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, and also the proceedings of Case No. 2601 of 2004, State Vs. Awadhesh Agarwal, instituted on the basis the charge sheet, pending in the court of C.J.M. Lalitpur. It appears from the record that an F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, u/s 409, 420, 471, 472 I.P.C. on 4.2.2004 at 6.30 P.M. by one Babu Lal, son of Daya Shanker Tiwari (O.P. No. 2) against the applicant and one Ravindra Nath Yadav. It was alleged in the FIR that Ravindra Nath Yadav and the applicant, respectively, were the President and the Secretary of Teachers Cooperative Society Limited, Nehru Mahavidyalaya, Lalitpur. These two persons in collusion with each other made forged signatures of Bhagwati Prasad, Suresh Chandra Shukla and Sri Bihari, the teachers of the College and withdrew Rs. 10,000/- on 10.5.1997 by cheque no. 011561, Rs. 15,000/- on 20.5.1997 by Cheque No. 011562 and Rs. 20,000/- on 19.1.1998 by Cheque No. 011568. These persons did not apply for the loan nor they took the amount. The matter was investigated upon and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against the applicant u/s 409, 420, 471, 472 I.P.C.
(2.) I have heard Mr. S. F. A. Naqbi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Dr. S. B. Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Naqbi that without ascertaining that the signatures alleged to have been forged were forged by the aforesaid President and the applicant when the aforesaid money was withdrawn, the charge sheet filed against the applicant is liable to be quashed. To the above, Dr. Singh argued that there was sufficient evidence on the record to substantiate the charge sheet. A look at the record would reveal that Babu Lal, the complainant of the case, was examined u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O. and his statement is available as Annexure no. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. He said that he was a clerk on daily basis in the aforesaid College and was removed by Ravindra Nath Yadav, who was the Principal of the College and was also the President of the aforesaid Cooperative Society. A Teachers Cooperative Society is running in the College in which the employees of the College deposit amount and get loan from this Society. In the year 1997-98 Ravindra Nath Yadav, Principal of the College, was the President of the aforesaid Cooperative Society and the applicant Awadhesh Agarwal was its Secretary. They in collusion with each other withdrew the aforesaid amount by forging signatures of the aforesaid persons in the Bank. They had issued bearer cheques. It was also said by the complainant that the aforesaid persons did not apply for the loan. The irregularities were communicated to him by his brother in relation Mr.Suresh Chandra Shukla, whose money was also withdrawn fraudulently. From the statement of this witness it appears that it was not in his personal knowledge as to whether the President and the Secretary of the aforesaid Cooperative Society had withdrawn the aforesaid amount by committing forgery. Therefore, the statement of this witness was not able to prove the charges. The statements of Bhagwati Prasad, Bihari Lal and Suresh Chandra Shukla were also recorded. Bhagwati Prasad, whose money is said to have been withdrawn fraudulently, had stated before the I.O. that on 10.5.1997 he took a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the aforesaid Society by means of bearer cheque no. 011561 and received the amount from District Cooperative Bank, Lalitpur. Later on he deposited the amount of loan on 2.5.1998. He also stated that the FIR was falsely lodged by the complainant. Therefore, the statement of this witness would not substantiate the charge sheet. The other alleged victim Bihari also stated that on 19.1.1998 he received a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the aforesaid Society by chequqe no. 011566 and encashed the same from District Cooperative Bank, Lalitpur. This witness also stated that the false FIR was lodged about him. Thus, this witness also did not support the prosecution case. In the statement of the third alleged victim Suresh Chandra Shukla it was alleged that he did not take any loan of Rs. 15000/- on 20.5.1997 and no cheque no. 011562 was received by him. He did not withdraw this amount from the Bank. He also stated that he had not applied for the loan nor he repaid it back. The statement of this witness appears to have been given to support his relative i.e. the complainant of the case. It was revealed by the complainant in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that Suresh Chandra Shukla himself was the President of the aforesaid Society for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. In the records maintained by the College from 1.4.1998 ot 31.3.1999 the taking of loan by Suresh Chandra Shukla is entered and is signed by him. This shows that Suresh Chandra Shukla took the loan otherwise he would have objected the same. Therefore, from the statements of the alleged victims it is proved that the loan was taken by them. Out of the three victims two had stated that the cheques were encashed by them but the third victim Suresh Chandra Shukla refused to encash the cheque. However, no evidence was collected by the I.O. that the cheque, which was in the name of Suresh Chandra Shukla was not encashed by him in the Bank and for that purpose signatures of Suresh Chandra Shukla should have been tallied with the signature of the person, who received the amount from the Bank. Thus, in the absence of such evidence it cannot be said that Suresh Chandra Shukla did not encash the cheque. Once it is proved that Suresh Chandra Shukla took the loan then there could be no possibility at all that he would not encash the cheque issued in his name. In view of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that any offence of embezzlement was committed by the applicant. It is also pertinent to mention that it has nowhere been proved that the signature of the then President Ravindra Nath Yadav was not made by him as in this regard also no comparison of specimen signature was done of this person and the signatures of this person found on the aforesaid three cheques.
(3.) THUS , in view of the above, I do feel that the I.O. wrongly submitted the charge sheet and the cognizance was also bad. Once the charge sheet and the cognizance was bad as they did not disclose any offence made out against the applicant, the prosecution of the applicant would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court, which should be interfered with by the High court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the charge sheet dated 31.7.2004 submitted in Crime No. C-4 of 2004, u/s 420, 409, 471, 472 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, and also the proceedings of Case No. 2601 of 2004, State Vs. Awadhesh Agarwal, instituted on the basis the charge sheet, pending in the court of C.J.M. Lalitpur, are hereby quashed.;