Allahabad High Court
Rochak Vaishya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5288 of 2021
Applicant :- Rochak Vaishya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Pal,Ram Sunder Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Ms. R.U. Rinki Renu, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of case No. 1567 of 2018 (State vs. Ram Awtar Gupta & another) arising out of NCR No. 218 of 2013, under Section 323 & 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Badaun pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badaun.
NCR dated 9.11.2013 has been registered on the application moved by opposite party no. 2 - Smt. Upma Gupta with the allegations that the present applicant and Ram Awtar Gupta had pushed her husband down, abused and beaten up him with fist and foot while he was riding bike in the morning and crossed Roopal Sari Sadan in the market. In the aforesaid NCR, the investigating officer after investigation has submitted chargesheet dated 16.12.2013 under Section 323 & 504 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the police case under the aforesaid sections is barred by Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. and therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated as a police case on the basis of the chargesheet should be quashed. She has submitted that against the cognizance taken by the trial court, the accused persons had filed criminal revision registered as criminal revision no. 277 of 2014 which was allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 28.5.2015 quashing the cognizance order dated 7.3.2014 and the magistrate was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. She has also submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 28.5.2015 no action has been taken by the court below and all of sudden, bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 22.7.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate which reveals that he has already considered the police report as a case under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. in pursuance of the order dtd. 28.5.2015 passed by the revisional court. It is further submitted that bailable warrant was issued in the month of March, 2017 and the applicant had appeared before the court below.
A perusal of the order dated 22.4.2017, which is part of the order sheet filed as annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the application, reveals that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has treated the matter as a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. The order sheet also reveals that that at subsequent stage, the accused persons have appeared before the court below. There is nothing left to be challenged before this Court.
In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to analyze the factual evidence which is to be placed before the trial court. The power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very specific and wide to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. No provision of this Code is deemed to limit or effect such inherent power of the High Court.
In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in Paragraph 61 which is quoted herein below :-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR or a complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline en-grafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court."
In a recent judgment passed on 15.04.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018, Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and others, 2019 (6) SCC 107, the Apex Court has held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidences of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because where there are contradictions or the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidences and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial, when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. The same view has also been reiterated in judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10762 of 2018, Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another.
The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. In absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the averments made in the present application, prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
In view of the aforesaid conspectus, the application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
nd
