Allahabad High Court
Trilochan Pratap Singh And ... vs The State Of U.P Thru Secy., Home ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2157 of 2011
Applicant :- Trilochan Pratap Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru Secy., Home Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Misra,Ranjeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Gyan Singh,Jai Pal Singh
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the charge-sheet No. 248 of 2010 arising out of case crime no.476 of 2010 under sections 467, 468, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kandhai, District Pratapgarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire dispute is of civil in nature and the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but a malicious prosecution. The petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged in the first information report and the police has investigated the case in a mechanical way and filed the charge-sheet. The court below has taken the cognizance without without considering the material on the record and without applying the judicial mind. He also submits that the entire proceeding is gross misuse of the process the law and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.
Learned AGA as also Dr. Gyan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and submitted that after collecting the sufficient material against the petitioner, the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate after having been found that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, has taken the cognizance and passed the summoning order.
I have heard the parties' counsel and perused the record.
The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, including ours one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296, Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474, Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781, M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682, State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74.
In Lee Kun Hee and others Vs. State of U.P. and others JT 2012 (2) SC 237, it was reiterated that Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate evidence, if any, available on record. Interference would be justified only when a clear case of such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled interference even at the preliminary stage by High Court may result in causing obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in public interest. It, however, may not be doubted, if on the face of it, either from the first information report or complaint, it is evident that allegation are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair-minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding, in such cases refusal to exercise jurisdiction may equally result in injustice, more particularly, in cases, where the complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.
However, in this matter, after investigation, Police has found a prima-facie case against accused and submitted charge-sheet in the Court below. After investigation the police has found a prima-facie case of commission of a cognizable offence by accused which should have tried in a Court of Law. At this stage there is no occasion to look into the question, whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not since that would be a subject matter of trial.
No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. From perusal of the record, it cannot be said that the cognizable offence is not made out against the petitioners.
I do not find any sufficient ground to quash the charge-sheet as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
VNP/-
