Allahabad High Court
Gulab vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 January, 2021
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14796 of 2020
Applicant :- Gulab
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Pandey,Brijesh Narain Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 5846 of 2019 (Daswanti Devi vs. Gulab and others), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Lalganj, District Mirzapur as well as the impugned summoning order dated 18.09.2019, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has not committed any crime. It was stated that the respondent no.2 is 'Bua' of applicant and that after death of her husband she has received the amount of Accident Insurance and some dispute has taken place between the applicant and respondent no.2 over that amount but later on the matter was compromised. Learned counsel has referred the compromise dated 27.05.2018 and stated that the respondent no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint making false and baseless allegations. It was also stated that the applicant is ready to pay the remaining amount to respondent no.2. Learned counsel submitted that witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. are family members of respondent no.2 and that no prima facie case is disclosed against the applicant.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out 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 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 may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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, 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 impugned complaint 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. No such ground appears to be available to the applicant, on the basis of which the impugned complaint can be quashed going by the settled law in 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.
Similarly so far as the impugned summoning order is concerned, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned summoning order has been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, interalia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the prayer as made above 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 45 days from today, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicant surrenders before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
With the aforesaid directions, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off finally.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021
A. Tripathi
