Allahabad High Court
Tasawar Ali vs State Of U.P., And Another on 17 February, 2021
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2058 of 2021
Applicant :- Tasawar Ali
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P., And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 7995 of 2020, Case Crime No. 34 of 2018 under Section 3/4 of The Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Hathgaon, District Fatehpur, pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ A.C.J.M., District Fatehpur as well as to quash the cognizance dated 28.09.2020 issued in the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and that the F.I.R. of impugned case has been filed on false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that charge sheet has been filed merely on the basis of statement of Lekhpal, who is a first informant. It was further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of any other revenue official and that the F.I.R. of impugned case has been lodged in respect of gata no.375 whereas on the other hand notice has been issued to the applicant under Section 67 (1) of the Revenue Code regarding encroachment by the applicant over the land of gata no. 451, whereas the disputed land is same. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has not committed any encroachment and that charge sheet has been filed in a routine manner without proper investigation and that no prima facie case is disclosed against the applicant and that the impugned cognizance order has been passed without considering the factual and legals aspect of the matter, therefore the impugned proceedings and cognizance order are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, makes out a prima facie case against the applicant.
The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint/ charge sheet and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet/ complaint may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. If a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
In the instant matter in view of allegations made in first information report and material collected during investigation a prima facie case is made out. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and 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.
After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for parties and perusing the charge sheet and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 CrPC. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Considering material on record and position of settled law as laid down in case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 as well as recent case of Apex Court in Rajeev Kourav V Bhaisahab & Ors (Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2020), decided on 11.02.2020, no case for quashing of impugned charge sheet / proceedings is made out.
Accordingly, the prayer as sought by applicant is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter and impact of Covid-19 Pandemic, it is directed that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below and applies for bail within a period of 30 days from today, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrender before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 17.2.2021
S.Ali
