Allahabad High Court
Shivam Khatri And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7048 of 2021
Applicant :- Shivam Khatri And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Case is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the impugned cognizance order dated 25.01.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, Jhansi as well as entire proceedings of Special Case No. 85 of 2021 (State vs. Shivam Khatri), arising out of Case Crime No. 579 of 2020, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) Da and 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, Jhansi.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that grand daughter of opposite party no.2 has married with cousin of applicant no.1, namely, Mayank Pawani on 10.04.2019 and that opposite party no.2 and his family members were annoyed due to that reason and on 07.10.2020 the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case making false and baseless allegations. In the alleged incident, no one has sustained any injury. The alleged incident was shown of 26.09.2020 but first information report was lodged with long delay on 07.10.2020. All the witnesses examined during investigation are interested witness as they are family members of opposite party no.2. The investigating officer did not conduct investigation properly and charge-sheet was submitted in a routine manner. It was submitted that in view of above stated facts, no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.
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 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 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 applicants, 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.
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 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 directions, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off finally.
Order Date :- 9.7.2021/A. Tripathi
