Allahabad High Court
Varun 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. - 6552 of 2021
Applicant :- Varun
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 36 of 2019 dated 13.02.2019 and cognizance / summoning order dated 13.05.2019 and also quash the further proceedings of Case No. 893/9 of 2019 (State Vs. Varun), under Sections 406, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffarnagar, arising out of Case Crime No. 0432 of 2018, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against him. The F.I.R. has been lodged after two months of alleged incident making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that matter in dispute is purely civil in nature and that no criminal offence is made out. Learned counsel submitted that charge-sheet has been filed in a routine manner without proper investigation. It has been further submitted that impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 13.05.2019 has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling in the name of the applicant and other details of case in the proforma, which clearly shows that the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned summoning order is not sustainable.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that in view of the allegations made in F.I.R. and material collected during investigation, prima-facie case is made out.
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 charge-sheet/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.
In view of the above, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and hence, the prayer for quashing of charge-sheet and proceedings is hereby, refused.
However, so far as the impugned cognizance order dated 13.05.2019 is concerned, perusal of record shows that it has been passed on photocopy of a printed proforma and merely details of case like Name of Accused, Sections, Police Station, Crime Number and Next Date of Listing were filled in the said proforma. It is well settled that cognizance order has to be passed after considering relevant material and showing appropriate reasons. Thus, it appears that this order has been passed in a mechanical way without applying the judicial mind.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and also in view of the law laid down in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432, Basasudin and others Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (1) JIC, 335 All, Abdul Rashid and others Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (3) JIC, 7661 All, the impugned summoning order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.05.2019, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar, is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the Court below to pass the order on cognizance and summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of
Order Date :- 6.7.2021
VPS
