Allahabad High Court
Alok Kumar Mishra And Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 10 July, 2015
Bench: Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18749 of 2015
Applicant :- Alok Kumar Mishra And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA and perused the record.
The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. by praying for quashing of the summoning order dated 25.2.2015 passed by the A.C.J.M. Court No. 9, Allahabad, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 136 of 2011, Azaj Ahmad Vs. Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra and another, under section 406, 323 and 504 I.P.C. P.S. Handia, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there is no material to connect the applicants with the alleged crime. There is no witness of the occurrence but they have wrongly been summoned without any basis, hence the impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case be quashed.
The record shows that the complainant and the witnesses have been examined under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and they have supported the prosecution story. At the initial stage of summoning only prima-facie case is to be seen. Therefore, looking into the prima-facie evidence on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed, the court will not normally interfere.
So far as the inherent powers of the court are concerned, it has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgements that while exercising its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by the evidence or not. The High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. (State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan and others AIR 1989 SC 1).
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para 10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and she is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
Thus on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the instant application appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, if possible, on the same day by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Order Date :- 10.7.2015
Pcl
