Allahabad High Court
Gulshan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 January, 2021
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18647 of 2020
Applicant :- Gulshan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 847 of 2018 (Smt. Lakshmi Vs. Gulshan and others) under Sections 323, 452, 506 of IPC, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh as well as entire criminal proceedings of above stated complaint case.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is husband of opposite party no.2 and that impugned complaint was filed making false and baseless allegations. It has been submitted that even if the applicant has gone at the house of his wife, no offence under Section 452 of IPC is made out. It has been submitted that opposite party no.2 is living at her parental house since last four years and after failure of compromise, this complaint was filed making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant.
Learned AGA has opposed the application and argued that in complaint, a prima facie case is made out against applicant, hence the impugned proceedings/complaint are not liable to be quashed.
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.
In the instant case, perusal of record shows that there is matrimonial dispute between applicant and his wife/opposite party no.2. The complainant/opposite party no.2 has made clear allegations that on 15.06.2020 applicant came at her parental home and pressed that either complainant compromise the matter or to give him Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) and that he has snatched Mangalsutra from her neck. Applicant has been summoned after recording statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Whether Section 452 of IPC is attracted or not, it shall be considered by the court below at appropriate stage. Considering the version of complaint and statement of complainant and of witnesses, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out.
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 within a period of 45 days from today and applies for bail, 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.
The instant application is disposed off with aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021
Mohit
