Bhanu Prakash Dixit vs State Of U.P. & Another
2018 Latest Caselaw 1803 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9894 of 2006
 

 
Applicant :- Bhanu Prakash Dixit
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- R.N. Sharma,Atul Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Pankaj Govil,R.B. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 18.4.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 121 of 2004, Satish Chandra Garg versus G.P. Gupta and others, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 417,166 167, 218, 120B IPC, Police Station Hari Parwat, District Agra pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

Perused the record.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the contents of the complaint and the evidence produce on record would indicate that the main allegations have been made against co-accused Rakesh Upman, while omnibus generalized allegations of being a party of conspiracy have been made against the applicant. Further submission is that if the applicant has been a part of the conspiracy he can be charged and prosecuted and also can be punished for the same. But in order to prove his guilt there has to be some tangible evidence on the basis of which the point of guilt or innocence of the applicant may be decided. It has been further submitted that making an allegation against somebody is different from giving evidence in proof of the allegation.  There is absolutely nothing on record on the basis of which it may be inferred that the applicant was a part and parcel of the conspiracy or he was indulged in any such kind of overt act or covert act on the basis of which his participation or his agreement with the other co-accused may be deduced. Submission is that therefore, summoning on the basis of such scanty material is unjustified and continuation of the criminal proceeding against him is nothing except abuse of the court's process. Submission is that indignated by the working of the applicant as Resident Engineer in the same office where the complainant-firm had taken work on contract basis and because of the non-payment of the amount due to be paid to the complainant he simply in order to wreak vengeance has filed this complaint.

Heard learned AGA who has tried to oppose the submissions made on behalf of the applicant but could not show any such material on the basis of which the Court may proceed to hold that the applicant was a part and parcel of the conspiracy hatched against the complainant.

In the decision of the Apex Court of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, certain categories have been recognized in which criminal prosecution and criminal proceedings may be quashed by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers. It would be apt to quote relevant portion of the judgment which reads thus:-

"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

This Court has gone through the entire material available on record and finds that the allegations that have been made in the complaint against the applicant are very generalized insinuations  and it is alleged that he is a part of the conspiracy but not an iota of evidence has been produced in support of the same. There is nothing indicated in the complaint on the basis of which this Court may hold that the applicant was a part and parcel of conspiracy. There has to be some proof of conspiracy. Making insinuation or allegation against somebody is different from giving or proposing some material in support of the allegations which is woefully lacking in the present complaint case. The insinuation as has been made by the complainant is not based on very definite material and the charge can hardly be proved when an accused comes to face trial. It is certainly a very serious matter especially for the public servants who are doing their regular jobs. Facing a criminal trial or having a complaint against them may adversely affect the reputation of a person in the society and, therefore, the court should proceed to summon the accused only if it finds substantial cogent material on the basis of which a person may be summoned to face trial. It is not and it can never be a casual exercise. It is also relevant to note that the other persons like G.P. Gupta and Kripal Singh against whom also almost similar allegations have been made, have not been summoned by the court as the court found that the material against them was wholly insufficient. This Court also finds that as the complainant was feeling hurt because of non-payment of the amount said to be due to be paid to him obviously nurtured ire against the employees of the department concerned and, therefore, it is not difficult to understand the malice behind filing this complaint.

In the considered opinion of this Court, this matter at hand, falls in the category nos. (5) and (7) of the aforesaid categories.

Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to quash the proceedings against the applicant. The application stands allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the applicant stands quashed.

It is clarified that for the present this order has been passed only with regard to the applicant on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.

Order Date :- 1.8.2018

CPP/-