Allahabad High Court
Ram Chandra And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2021
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6104 of 2021
Applicant :- Ram Chandra And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 18.01.2020 passed in Complaint Case no. 186 of 2020 (Chaitu Pashi Vs. Ram Chandra and others) passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur, under sections 323, 504 506 IPC and section 3(1)(D) & 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kishanpur, District Fatehpur.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in compliance of the order dated 28.01.2019 the authority concerned has submitted a detail report and explaining the circumstances that it is a totally false and frivolous complaint and is in counter blast of complaint made by Ram Chandra and Kallu against village Pradhan of Paharpur.
Learned A.G.A. has also also placed the reliance in the case of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kunwar Singh, which is quoted below:
"Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC by enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the 'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into, the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration of a public scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of CrPC, after investigation."
From the perusal of the order impugned dated 18.01.2019 it transpires that the order passed by Special Judge is well reasoned and also found basis for summoning the applicants under the aforesaid sections. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is refused.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021
RPD
