Allahabad High Court
Asfar @ Afsar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10102 of 2022
Applicant :- Asfar @ Afsar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 08.03.2022 passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Amroha as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 53 of 2022 under Sections 452, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Bachhrau, District-Amroha.
The brief facts of the case are that for an incident dated 30.12.2021, an application dated 04.01.2022 was moved by applicant no.1 against opposite party no.2 and others mentioning therein that the dispute with respect to garbage placed on the passage used by the applicants for which, an application was given by the applicants before Nagar Palika, Bachhrau. For the same incident, an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by opposite party no.2 against the applicants which has been treated as a complaint and the applicants have been summoned, therefore, the present case has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that annoyed by the applicants for moving an application before the concerned Nagar Palika, a false and frivolous case has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants. Moreover, it is a case of no injury and in fact, it was the opposite party no.2 who came at the residence of the applicants to assault them for creating a dispute on 30.12.2021. Therefore, the summoning order as well as the proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that there is no evidence to show that no such incident took place on 30.12.2021 and that all the submissions made by counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court cannot look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus, no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking.
The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Paragraph 39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
"39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence............."
In fact, while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the cases of 'R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab' reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and 'State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal' reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2022
Madhurima
