Allahabad High Court
Balmukund Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 June, 2021
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6345 of 2021
Applicant :- Balmukund Pandey And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Application u/s 482 has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 25.10.2018 along with cognizance order as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6884 of 2019, State Vs. Balmukund Pandey & another, arising out of N.C.R. No. 40 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C., Police Station Dharmsinghwa, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
This petition is filed belatedly.
The offences for which the petitioner is facing the trial are punishable with seven years and less of incarceration and therefore, a safeguard is ordered that if the police wishes to arrest them contours of 41A Cr.P.C. should also be followed. The Submission that provisions of Section 2D Cr.P.C. are not followed cannot be accepted.
The submission is that the learned Magistrate has also not applied his judicial mind and without going through material collected during the investigation has taken the cognizance on the charge sheet in a mechanical manner. While taking the cognizance on the charge sheet submitted against the applicant learned court below has not recorded his subjective satisfaction that whether a prima-facie offence against the applicant is disclosed. In such circumstances the order taking cognizance and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6884 of 2019, State Vs. Balmukund Pandey & another, pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, during pendency of the present case before this Hon'ble Court, is nothing but abuse of process of Court, hence liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court cannot be accepted.
The averments and complaint by the complainant will also not permit this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am even fortified in my view by the decision rendered in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, (2017) 2 SCC 799. There are serious allegations against all the persons. Therefore it cannot be said that this is a case which requires to be entertained. The Court as per the contours of 482 cannot grant indirectly which it cannot be granted directly. I am even fortified in my view by the decision rendered in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2021 SC 1918.
At the stage the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. Of course it has been pointed out in Bhajan Lal cases, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, an F.I.R. or a complaint may be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and inheretently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but the High Court has not recorded such a finding, obviously because on the allegation in the F.I.R. it was not possible to do so. Therefore, it must be held that the High Court has committed a gross error of law in quashing the F.I.R. and the complaint. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the petition filed by the respondent in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
The judgment in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 10 SCC 663 is also applicable to the facts of this case. The scope of enquiry and investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very limited and the material placed on record is not such which will permit this Court to quash the proceedings.
The petition is devoid of merits and, is dismissed.
The contention that the date of cognizance is 16.01.2021, this shows that the petitioner was aware that the matter is pending but he has choosen to appear before this Court.
Order Date :- 30.6.2021
VPS
