Allahabad High Court
Chabiram And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 July, 2016
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21603 of 2016
Applicant :- Chabiram And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Chahar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants is is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1675 of 2015 (Satish Chand Vs. Dwarika Prasad and others) as well as summoning order dated 26.3.2016, under sections 147, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shamshabad, District Agra pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Agra.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no.2 has lodged a complaint on 23.4.2015 stating therein that the applicants and four other persons entered into his house using abusive language with intent to kidnap his wife. The applicants inconnivance with other accused persons had executed a sale deed of immovable property of mother in law of the opposite party no.2 by impersonation and thereafter one Vinod Kumar had committed murder of his grand mother. Thereafter an F.I.R. was registered against Vinod Kumar under section 302 I.P.C., who was sent to jail. It is further submitted that proceeding initiated in respect of the alleged incident dated 24.1.2015 an N.C.R. had already been lodged by opposite party no.2 against four persons in which police did not proceed for any investigation and now the present complaint has been filed adding four persons in respect of the same incident which is said to have occurred on 24.1.2015 when the applicants had never indulged in committing any offences as alleged in the complaint. The court below has proceeded with the case against the applicants in a pedantic manner merely on the basis of statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. and passed the summoning order dated 26.3.2016 against the applicants along with the four other persons, who were named in the N.C.R.
It is further contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The father in law of opposite party no.2 had already filed Suit No.160 of 2015 in respect of property in dispute before the Court of IVth Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra against the applicant nos. 1 and 2 for declaration of sale deed null and void allegedly executed by Smt. Savitri Devi in favour of the applicant nos. 1 and 2. Hence the criminal prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2008) (60) ACC 1 S.C.
Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that the court below has taken cognizance against applicnats after recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the primitive stage. The applicants will have ample opportunity to bolster their defence at the appropriate stage before the court below. The facts and circumstances of the case cited by the learned counsel for the applicants is not applicable in this case.
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 applicants.
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 decision in Indra Mohan Goswami (Supra) pertains to the offence of first information report under sections 420, 467, 120B I.P.C. relating to cheating and forgery but the instant case is relating to offence punishable under sections 147, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. when the wife of the complainant was beaten up and dragged by the applicants with intent to kidnap her and to create undue pressure. It is well settled law that civil and criminal proceeding may run parallel as relief and standard of proof being different.
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 office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.7.2016
RU
