Allahabad High Court
Bharat Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 158 of 2021
Applicant :- Bharat Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Sengar,Vijay Singh Sengar
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 Complaint Case No. 1751 of 2019 (Smt. Guddi Devi Vs. Ram Sharan @ Banshi and others) under Sections 323,354, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Auraiya, District Auraiya pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya as well as to quash the summoning order dated 29.07.2019 passed in the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and that impugned complaint has been filed on false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that applicant nos.1 and 2 are real brothers, applicant no.3 is the son of the applicant no.1 and thus the version of complainant that applicant no.2 did obscene act with her is not reliable and probable. It was further submitted that there was a dispute regarding construction of drainage due to which, the opposite party no.2 filed a false and baseless complaint to exert pressure upon the applicants. It was further stated that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and therefore, the impugned proceedings as well as summoning order are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that allegations made in the complaint disclose prima facie offence against the applicants. It was further submitted that applicants have been summoned after following the due procedure and after considering the statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore prima facie offence is disclosed against the applicants, hence the impugned proceedings and summoning order 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/ 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 applicants 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 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 proceedings/summoning order is made out.
Accordingly, the prayer as sought by applicants is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter and impact of Covid-19 Pandemic, it is directed that in case applicants appear and surrender before the Court below and apply for bail within a period of 45 days from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021
S.Ali
