Allahabad High Court
Shiv Das Soni vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And ... on 3 November, 2017
Bench: Ajai Lamba, Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 9
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 26401 of 2017
Petitioner :- Shiv Das Soni
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./Case Crime No.203 of 2017, under Sections 60, 64 (A) of U.P. Excise Act and Sections 259, 260, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur.
2. We have gone through the impugned F.I.R.
Apparently, the petitioner has the licence of running liquor shop where raid was conducted and forged holograms and spurious liquor were found.
3. Considering the serious nature of allegations and the serious nature of offence that has been committed and also the fact that investigation is at inceptive stage, we find no reason to interfere in investigation process.
4. Evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter affidavits to record a finding that the offence has not been committed. No such material has been placed on record that can be translated into legal evidence so as to disprove the prosecution case.
5. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner(s), in context of the material/ pleadings relied on by the petitioner(s), in context of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajiv Thappar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330. In Rajiv Thappar's case (supra), the following (relevant portion) has been held:-
"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:
30.1. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/ complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ complainant?
30.4. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
(emphasised by us)
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."
6. We are of the considered opinion that the material/ pleadings on which learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has relied, is not such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges/allegations levelled against the accused; and the material produced is not of sterling and impeccable quality as would persuade reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusation as false.
7. Under the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere in extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
8. The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.11.2017
Shukla
