Allahabad High Court
Vijay Pal Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 6 August, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5223 of 2022
Applicant :- Vijay Pal Singh And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 26.09.2017 and N.B.W. dated 30.05.2022 in complaint case no.8644/2016, Hari Mangal vs. Vijay Pal and others, whereby the concerned court below summoned the applicants, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bikapur Kotwali, District Faizabad as well as quash the entire proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case.
Foremost contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the impugned summoning order dated 10.05.2022 is not in conformity with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. His further submission is that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned summoning order has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant's version of the incident, as stated in the complaint, is not substantiated by the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, he has contended that even prima facie no offence is disclosed against the applicants, despite this fact, he has been summoned to face the trial which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial. At this initial stage, the fact of innocence of the applicants can also not be determined.
Learned A.G.A. further submits that the sufficiency of the material and the test to be applied at the stage of issue of process has been considered in the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2012) 11 SCC 465, wherein it has been reiterated that the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt".
On the basis of the aforesaid, he submits that no interference with the impugned summoning order and proceedings is warranted at this stage and, therefore, the application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the records, it transpires that the allegations in the complaint have been found to be duly corroborated by the statement made on oath by the complainant during the course of examination under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry made by the learned Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order has been passed referring the aforesaid statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and only thereafter, impugned summoning order has been passed. Therefore, at this initial stage, no ground for quashing the impugned summoning order and the proceedings of aforesaid case is made out.
Even otherwise, the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. Therefore, I do not find any justification to quash the proceedings against the applicants as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
Accordingly, prayer of quashing the impugned summoning order and other proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby refused.
It is relevant to extract Category A as mentioned in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/ SC/ 1024/ 2021 which is quoted herein below :
"After filing of charge sheet/complaint taking of cognizance.
a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.
b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.
c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.
d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.
e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided."
It is needles to mention that in case, the applicant appears before the Court below for cancellation of process issued against him/praying for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, in accordance with law and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antill (Supra).
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.8.2022
A.Dewal
