Allahabad High Court
Suresh Kumar Gautam @ Goodluck vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18356 of 2020
Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Gautam @ Goodluck
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Applicant has approached this Court by way of filing present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking following reliefs:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 550 of 2020 (State of U.P. Versus Suresh Gautam) including cognizance and summoning order dated 25.6.2020 arising out of Charge sheet No. A 77 of 2019 dated 22.5.2019, bearing Case Crime No. 0072 of 2019 under Section 4/25 Arms Act 1959 registered at P.S. Sikara, District Jaunpur pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd District - Jaunpur be quashed.
It is further prayed that till the pendency of the present application before Hon'ble Court further proceedings in the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 550 of 2020 (State of U.P. Versus Suresh Gautam) including cognizance and summoning order dated 25.6.2020 arising out of Charge sheet No. A 77 of 2019 dated 22.5.2019, bearing Case Crime No. 0072 of 2019 under Section 4/25 Arms Act 1959 registered at P.S. Sikara, District Jaunpur pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd District - Jaunpur kindly be stayed or such other and further order be passed which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a First Information Report was lodged against applicant under Section 4/25 Arms Act, 1959 alleging that during the raid conducted by police, applicant and other co-accused were apprehended while they were planning to commit dacoity and during search illegal arm was also recovered. After investigation charge sheet has been filed against applicant. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant was not arrested from spot rather he was picked up from the house and kept under illegal detention. By profession applicant is a Tailor, who also used to repair and stitch dresses of police personnels. However, the police personnels annoyed as applicant asked for money and, therefore, he was falsely roped in the present case.
4. Learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the application and submits that after proper investigation charge sheet has been filed and there is a limited scope under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere at this stage by this Court.
5. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.
6. Law on the inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6.01 The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice, which is to be exercised ''to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C.', or ''to prevent abuse of process of any Court', or ''to secure ends of justice', making arena of the power very wide, yet it is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, that too in the rarest of rare cases.
6.02 It is no more res integra that exercise of inherent power could be invoked to even quash a criminal proceeding/FIR/Complaint/
6.03 There can not be any straight jacket formula for regulating the inherent power of this Court, however the Supreme Court has summarised and illustrated some categories in which this power could be exercised in catena of judgments. Some of them are State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd Vs Mohd Sharaful Haque: (2005) 1 SCC 122, Ahmed Ali Quarashi and Anr Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh : 2020 SCC Online SC 107, Joseph Salvaraja A v. State of Gujarat (2011) 7 SCC 59, Sushil Sethi and another Vs The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others (2020) 3 SCC, 240 and few categories are : allegations made in FIR / complaint / Chargesheet, if are taken at their face value and accepted do not prima facie constitute any offence or are so absurd and inherently improbable to make out any case or no cognizable offence is disclosed against the accused, criminal proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and with a view to spite the accused due to private and personal grudge, or where there is a specific legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or in the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings or when dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out.
6.04 In Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra : (2019) 14 SCC 350 , the Apex Court has laid emphasis on the principles laid down in two of its previous judgements namely, State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa : 2015 (3) SCC 424 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.: (2006)6 SCC 736 and held that quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only when the complaint does not disclose any offence, or the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive and further clarified that defences available during a trial and facts/aspects whose establishment during the trial may lead to acquittal cannot form the basis of quashing a criminal complaint. The criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature, if the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out in the complaint.
7. From perusal of record available in the application it is evident that applicant was arrested at the spot and illegal arm was also recovered. Applicant has also confessed about the offence of dacoity. After investigation charge sheet has been filed. The submission with regard to ulterior motive is not supported by any evidence and, therefore, cannot be accepted while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. As mentioned above, inherent power does not empower the High Court to assume the role of Trial Court and to embark upon an inquiry as to reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation. All the submissions made by counsel for applicant are disputed facts, therefore, no case is made out under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. The application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 12.01.2021
AK
