Allahabad High Court
Balveer Singh Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22559 of 2022
Applicant :- Balveer Singh Yadav And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 22.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No 1787 of 2019 under sections 387, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Chirgaon, District-Jhansi as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 had borrowed some money from the applicant in the year 2014 and when the applicant went to his house requesting him to return his money, he was assaulted by opposite party no.2 in which he sustained injuries. Subsequently, the present case has been lodged by opposite party no.2 with false and frivolous in order to save himself from returning the money. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he had never gone at the place of opposite party no.2 on 12.02.2019 and no such incident ever took place. It is further submitted that no injury has been caused to opposite party no.2, therefore, no offence under section 373 I.P.C. is made out. Therefore, the proceedings as well as the summoning order have been passed without application of mind.
Learned A.G.A. submits that there are averments in the complaint as well as statement under section 200/202 Cr.P.C., the offence under relevant sections are made out. Even otherwise, the disputed questions of facts cannot be looked into at this stage.
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."
16. 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 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 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, rejected.
Order Date :- 5.8.2022
Madhurima
