Allahabad High Court
Santosh And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. 4 Others on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20850 of 2022
Applicant :- Santosh And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 24.12.2021 passed by Court below and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.101 of 2019 (Depali Vs. Santosh and Others), under Sections 392, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Kampil, District-Farrukhabad, pending in the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area)/Third Additional Session Judge, Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant nos. 1 & 2 are brothers-in-law (Devar) of opposite party no.2 and the applicant nos.3, 4 & 5 are the residents of the village where applicant nos. 1 & 2 reside. He further submits that opposite party no.2 was married to brother of applicant nos.1 & 2 and after death of her husband she went away to reside with one Pappu, however, she was in possession of the share of her husband's house in question. The opposite party no.2 being widow was harassed by applicant nos. 1 and 2. On 01.06.2019, when the opposite party no.2 had gone to attend some marriage, the applicants breaking the lock of the house which was in possession of opposite party no.2, took away her belongings. When the opposite party no.2 returned and objected to the aforesaid, she was threatened by the applicants, who used abusive language against opposite party no.2. After breaking the lock, the applicants have illegally entered the house in question, hence, the opposite party no.2 moved an application 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants. On the said application police report was called wherein though the entire incident has been admitted but it speaks about the exaggerated version given by opposite party no.2. The aforesaid application has been treated as complaint case, and in the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the version of the complaint has been reiterated. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that opposite party no.2 has married someone and does not reside at the disputed house in question. The exaggerated version of the entire incident has been given in the application moved by opposite party no.2, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicants and the order of summoning the applicants is illegal and bad in the eyes of law and has to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. submits that applicants have rightly been summoned by the Court below and there is nothing on record to show that the incident did not take place, but the police report goes to show that the incident took place. He further submits that other submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, at this stage, relates to the factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application along with the impugned order.
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. The Court can not 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 no.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 Atrocities 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 the 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 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 the 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 :- 5.8.2022
Rahul.
