Allahabad High Court
Abdul Ajeej And 2 Others vs Stae Of U.P. And Another on 24 June, 2016
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19166 of 2016
Applicant :- Abdul Ajeej And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- Stae Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Prem Chandra Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of the charge sheet dated 22.9.2012 including cognizance order dated 29.11.2012 in Case No.4232 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.110 of 2012, under sections 147, 323, 324, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Mantola, District Agra (State vs. Abdul Ajeej and others) pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Agra.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the F.I.R. against the applicants with absolutely false, concocted and vague allegations and as such the entire proceeding is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law hence the same is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, the learned AGA opposed contention of the applicants by stating that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity. Cognizance of the matter has been taken on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer after collecting clinching material. The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the primitive stage. The applicants 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, the applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of 30 days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously keeping in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati & another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and is also approved by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (2) Crimes 4 (S.C.) after hearing the Public Prosecutor.
In case the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against him.
Order Date :- 24.6.2016
RU
