Allahabad High Court
Mahendra And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6396 of 2021
Applicant :- Mahendra And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh
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. 372 of 2020 (Gore Lal Vs. Mahendra and others) under Sectins 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (s) The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot pending in the Court of learned Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Special Judge (D.A.A.) Act, Chitrakoot as well as to quash the summoning order dated 04.02.2021 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 that complaint of impugned case was lodged by opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. In the said incident, no one has sustained any injury. It was submitted that the witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. are highly interested witnesses and that the dispute relates about land, which is situated in front of house of opposite party no.2 and of applicants but the opposite party no.2 and his family members used to tie their animals in front of house of applicants and when it was objected they started claiming that land as their own land. It was further submitted that earlier the daughter-in-law of the opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint making merely similar allegations and in that matter the accused persons are on bail. It was next submitted that the entire relevant facts of the matter have not been considered by the Court below while passing the impugned summoning order. Learned counsel has pointed out certain documents and argued 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 in view of the allegations made in the impugned complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out, hence the impugned complaint 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 complaint and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 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 them due to private and personal grudge.
After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned summoning order and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be such 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 impugned charge sheet / proceedings 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 30 days from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 30 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 :- 6.7.2021
S.Ali
