Allahabad High Court
Ram Aasre vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 August, 2016
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24275 of 2016
Applicant :- Ram Aasre
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Achchhey Lal Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 18.2.2015 and cognizance order dated 6.4.2015 in Criminal Case No.436 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Asasre and others) arising out of Case Crime No.1381 of 2011, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) City, Jaunpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no.2 by moving an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant with absolutely false and concocted allegations stating therein that the applicant has got the sale deed executed by impersonation in the year 2010. Learned court below has proceeded against the applicant in a pedantic manner merely on the basis of statements of the complainant and of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and passed the order taking cognizance against him to face the trial under the aforesaid offence when no prima facie offence is made out, which is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law.
Per contra learned AGA opposed contention of the applicant stating that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter on the basis of the statement of the complainant and the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other clinching material collected by the investigating agency during investigation. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the primitive stage. The applicant will have ample opportunity to raise objection at the appropriate stage before the court below.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.
At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus the same is accordingly dismissed. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
However, it is open for the applicant to move discharge application before the court concerned at the appropriate stage, the same shall be considered and decided by the court below in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.8.2016
RU
