Allahabad High Court
Rana Singh Alias Rana Singh Alias ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 January, 2021
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17833 of 2020
Applicant :- Rana Singh Alias Rana Singh Alias Martnd Vikram Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vartika Singh,Alok Kumar Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailesh Pandey
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 1010 of 2014 (Nagendra Singh Vs. Rana Singh) under Section 436 of IPC, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), II, Mirzapur as well as order dated 18.09.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.II, Mirzapur passed in revision No. 41 of 2018 and order dated 28.04.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), II, Mirzapur, whereby applicant has been summoned for offence under Section 436 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
In compliance of previous order of this Court, an affidavit of Sheshdhar Pandey, Inspector, has been filed by learned AGA, which is taken on record.
It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that the impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations and that the allegation that applicant has put the house of complainant on fire, is false and baseless. Learned counsel has given much thrust to the argument when opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Court has called a police report and in its report, police have stated that the house of complainant has sustained fire due to short circuit. Learned counsel submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances, no case against applicant is made out and the impugned summoning order as well as the order of revisional Court is liable to be set aside.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the application. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has stated that the witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have clearly stated that applicant has put the house of complainant on fire. It was stated that the questions of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court in jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out and that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order and the order of revisional Court. The revisional Court has considered the entire facts and a reasoned order was passed and the summoning order was upheld. It was stated that as per affidavit of concerned police official, there is no such record with Electricity Department that alleged fire was result of any short circuit.
Perusal of record shows that witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have made statements that applicant has put the house of opposite party no.2 on fire. 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.
Perusal of material on record shows that the impugned orders have been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. The revision against summoning order was dismissed considering all relevant material. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, inter-alia, 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 matter, no such eventuality could be shown.
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 30 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 30 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 direction, the application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 29.1.2021
Mohit
