Allahabad High Court
Arif Anwar Hashmi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2863 of 2021
Applicant :- Arif Anwar Hashmi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no. 1-State, as well as Mr. Rakesh Chandra Tewari, learned counsel representing respondent no. 2, and gone through the record.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed for quashing of charge-sheet dated 27.10.2020 filed in FIR/Crime No.0114 of 2020, under Sections 506, 419 and 420 IPC lodged at Police Station Sahdullanagar, District Balmpur, for quashing of the order dated 22.11.2022 by means of which cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been summoned to face trial, and for quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.1492 of 2020 (State Vs. Arif Anwar Hasmi), pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Balrampur
3. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 506 IPC against the applicant on a written complaint made by the respondent no.2. Investigating agency, however, after completing investigation has filed charge-sheet under Sections 506, 419 and 420 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the offence under Sections 419 and 420 IPC are not made out against the applicant inasmuch the respondent no. 2 has accepted the registered agreement between the parties. The learned counsel has furher submitted that there is no cheating, as defined under Section 415 IPC, to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC. The learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent no. 2, in Civil Suit No.45 of 2017, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, FTC, Balrampur, which has been filed for specific performance, in his written statement, has accepted about execution of the agreement. The learned counsel has further submitted that the offence under Section 419 IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 (Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor). Para-29 of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor's case (supra), reads as under:-
"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice."
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The applicant is an Ex-M.L.A., having checkered criminal history of 27 cases; he has been declared 'Bhu Mafia'.
7. Be that as it may, the applicant can raise all these submissions at the time of framing of charge/discharge. If the applicant brings some cogent and credible evidence of sterling and impeccable character, the same should also be considered by the learned trial Court, while deciding the discharge application/framing of charge.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2022
MVS/-
