Allahabad High Court
Khila Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17983 of 2021
Applicant :- Khila Singh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.
This applicants, through the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of F.R. o. 110 of 2021, Bhura alias Balakram Vs. Khila Singh Pradhan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 803 of 2020, under sections 323, 504 IPC and section 3(1)(D)), 3(1)Dha), 3(2)va SC/ST Act, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Saharanpur and also to quash the impugned order dated 26.07.2021.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 26.10.2020 at unknown time for which the FIR was lodge on the same date at 5 P.M. According to the prosecution case, the applicants physically assaulted the opposite party No. 2 and others causing injuries to four persons. Further argued that after investigation, the investigating officer submitted a final report in favour of the applicant on 23.01.2021, but on the basis of the the aforesaid protest petition, vide impugned order dated 26.7.2021, the court below summoned the applicants to face the trial under the aforesaid sections.
In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 that the relevant portion has been ignored and entire portion has been disclose. Learned A.G.A. has also placed the reliance in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanwar Singh in which it has been relied that,
"Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the 'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. A detailed enquiry into, the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration of a public scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of Cr P C, after investigation.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as material brought on record, I am of the view that impugned order is based upon relevant consideration and supported by cogent reason, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence, no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
The application lacks merit. It is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022
RPD
