Shakib Farookhi vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the submissions made by the applicant's counsel required adjudication on pure questions of fact, which were best suited for the trial court. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments (R.P. Kapur, State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr., Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr., M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava, Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others, Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others, and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra) concerning the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court found no justification to quash the charge-sheet or proceedings as the case did not fall within the recognized categories for quashing. It concluded that a prima facie case was made out from the FIR and the material collected, and there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The Court explicitly stated it would not engage in a pre-trial discussion of facts to avoid prejudice. The prayer for quashing was refused, and the application was rejected as lacking merit.

Facts

The applicant, Shakib Farookhi, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge-sheet, an impugned order, and the entire proceedings of a criminal case. The case arose from an FIR lodged alleging fraud in a loan application and the use of firm papers to evade tax. The applicant claimed innocence, stating he was neither an owner nor a partner of the firm M/s R.B. Traders, had not used its papers, and had not signed any loan or GST papers for tax evasion. He contended that the prosecution was malicious and an abuse of process. The State, through the learned AGA, opposed the application, arguing that the applicant's contentions involved disputed questions of fact and that a prima facie case was made out based on the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings at the pre-trial stage when the allegations involve disputed questions of fact and a prima facie case is made out. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, innocent, and not involved in the firm's functioning or any tax evasion. He contended that no offence was disclosed against him and the prosecution was initiated with malafide intention, constituting an abuse of the court's process. He relied on documents and statements to support his claims. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that all contentions raised by the applicant pertained to disputed questions of fact, which could only be adjudicated by the trial court. It asserted that the investigation revealed a strong prima facie case against the applicant. The State relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna.