Allahabad High Court
Satya Prakash And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 June, 2021
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8620 of 2021
Applicant :- Satya Prakash And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Sati Shanker Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
Sri A.K. Mishra learned counsels for the applicants appearing through Video Conferencing, and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No.517 of 2020 (State vs. Satyendra Singh) as well as Charge Sheet dated 23.04.2020 including cognizance order dated 08.05.2020 arising out of Case Crime No.90 of 2020, u/s 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Etah, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Mahoba.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in this case the dispute is between the brothers. He further submits that applicants are falsely implicated in this case. The contents of the complaint are self contradictory. Even the statements recorded u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. are also self contradictory and the said fact is acknowledged by the learned court below, thereafter summons have been issued against the applicants. He further submitted that there is a possibility of compromise also as the present dispute is between the family members. He further submitted that on the basis of the statements recorded before learned Court below no prima facie case is made out. He lastly submitted that issuing summoning order is a serious issue, however learned Court below has summarily without applying judicial mind has passed the order for summoning the applicants, therefore, the present application is liable to be allowed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the learned court below has taken note of the statements recorded under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and issued summons only so far as the offence u/s 392 and 506 I.P.C. are concerned. Therefore, this application is liable to be rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is well settled that Inherent Power of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 1973, states that :-
(I)'Inherent Power' of the High Court under section 482 CrPC, an extraordinary power is with purpose and object of advancement of justice, which is to be exercised 'to give effect to any order under the CrPC', 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, with great care and with circumspection, that too in the rarest of rare case.
(II)It is no more res integra that exercise of inherent power could be invoked to even quash a criminal proceeding/First Information Report/complaint /chargesheet, but only when allegation made therein does not constitute ingredients of the offence/offences and /or are frivolous and vexatious on their face, without looking into defence evidence, however such power should not be exercised to stifle or cause sudden death of any legitimate prosecution. Inherent power does not empower the High Court to assume role of a trial court and to embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation, specifically in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, similarly quashing of criminal proceedings by assessing the statements under section 161 CrPC at initial stage is nothing but scuttling a full fledged trial.
(III)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, Priti Saraf and Anr Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr : 2021 SCC Online SC 206. Some categories/ circumstances as illustrations but not exhaustive are : allegations made in FIR / complaint, 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, further courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out.
(IV)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.
In the present case learned trial Court after considering the statements recorded u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. have come to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out u/s 392 and 506 I.P.C. Learned trial Court has rightly rejected the statements in regard to the allegation of assault as mentioned in the impugned order. This Court in exercise of inherent powers could interfere only when there is a abuse the process of law or in the interest of justice. In the present case the statements recorded u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. has prima facie made a case against the applicants u/s 392 & 506 I.P.C. as there are consistent statements of the witnesses in this regard that the applicants have entered the place of occurrence and taken away the materials of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant is not able to show that complaint does not disclose any offence or complaint is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
Therefore, in these circumstances no case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court. Hence, this application is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.6.2021
A.Dewal
