Monika Shukla vs State Of U.P And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 20630 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 66
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41155 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Monika Shukla
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Lakshman Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Monika Shukla with the following prayers :-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the entire proceedings of case no. 1273 of 2022 (State v Monika Shukla) pending before Learned ADJ/Special Judge Anti-Corruption (I), Merrut regarding the case crime no. 258 of 2021 U/S 7/13 PC Act 1988, P.S.- Janakpuri, District Saharanpur, vide charge sheet dated 26.2.2022.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may pleased to stay further proceedings of case no.1273 of 2022 (State v Monika Shukla) pending before Learned ADJ/Special Judge Anti-Corruption (I), Merrut regarding crime no. 258 of 2021 U/S 7/13 PC Act 1988, P.S.- Janakpuri, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the present application, and/or pass such other and further order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

The First Information Report in the present case was lodged on 2.9.2021 by Dr. Sanjay Mamlik, Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur against the applicant alleging therein that beneficiary of Ayushman Bharat is Satish Kumar whose son Lakshya Kumar gave an application to him on 10.6.2021 stating therein that in the scheme of Ayushman Bharat, Ayushman Mitra Monika Shukla (the present applicant) working in SBD District Hospital, Saharanpur, demanded Rs.5,000/- from his father Satish Kumar for making an Ayushman Card. He also handed over him an audio about it.The same was given to Chief Superintendent, SBD District Hospital, Saharanpur, on which the services of temporary outsourced employee Monika Shukla was terminated. The matter was published in newspapers and media also. Lakshya Kumar further told him that his father Satish Kumar is a scheduled caste and very poor and a beneficiary of Ayushman Scheme. He was admitted in a precarious condition in AIIMS, Rishikesh and as there was shortage of money he had come for getting Ayushman Card made and taking the benefit of his condition, Monika Shukla illegally demanded money. The matter was got enquired through Dr. Sanjay Yadav, Additional Chief Medical Officer, who after detailed inquiry found the allegation to be true. On finding the allegation to be true, the services of temporary employee Monika Shukla were terminated on 15.6.2021 as she was found to be involved in illegal extortion of money. Monika Shukla is an outsourced temporary employee. In her explanation given on 11.6.2021 she has accepted the allegation of demand of money. Ayushman Bharat Scheme is an important scheme launched by the Prime Minister. The said incident is circulating a lot and is a topic of discussion which has been taken up very seriously. The F.I.R. has thus been lodged.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as a matter of fact the Ayushman Card of father of the complainant was issued on 07.6.2021 and hence there was no question for demand of any money. The applicant only told him the charges of medical tests during OPD and due to some rivalry in the department, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. Para-6 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. It is further argued that on 30.9.2020 Chief Superintendent of SBD District Hospital, Saharanpur ordered the applicant to vacate her hospital residence and the same was allotted to someone else and as the applicant had not left the residence, the said officer got angry and the present F.I.R. has been lodged, copy of the said letter has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 5 to the affidavit and para-7 of the affidavit has been placed to buttress the said argument. It is further argued while placing para-9 of the affidavit that the applicant was terminated from her job of Ayushman Mitra on 15.6.2021 against which she filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7879 of 2021 (Monika Shukla vs. State of U.P. and another), before this Court which is pending disposal, copy of the said impugned order is annexure no. 6 to the affidavit, but in the meantime, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. Learned counsel has further argued that Satish Bharti the father of the complainant has given an affidavit that the present case has been lodged only because of some misunderstanding of his minor son Lakshya Bharti and the applicant never demanded any money for Ayushman Card and further states that he does not want to proceed any more in the present case, para-10 of the affidavit and annexure no. 7 being the said affidavit, have been placed before the Court. It is argued that the police has filed charge sheet against the applicant without any credible and cogent evidence on which the applicant has been summoned vide order dated 6.8.2022 passed by the trial court. It is argued that looking the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application be allowed and the proceedings against the applicant be quashed. It is further argued that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 7.12.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Msic. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 18763 of 2021, copy of the said order is anenxure no. 2 to the affidavit.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that from perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation offence is made out against the applicant. It is further argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against her on which the concerned court has passed an order taking cogniznace on it and summoning the applicant. It is argued that the arguments as raised and pleaded are matter of defense which can be taken by the applicant at the appropriate stage before the trial court.

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. Investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant upon which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen.

It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. : (2001) 8 SCC 645; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs. Mohammd Shariful Haque : (2005) 1 SCC 122; M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava : (2009) 9 SCC 682; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801; Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar : (2019) 6 SCC 107; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC 706; Rajeev Kourav Vs. Balasaheb & others : (2020) 3 SCC 317; Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh : (2020) 12 SCC 467, that exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinize the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception.

Further in the case of Priti Saraf & anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. : Criminal Appeal No(s). 296 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6364 of 2019] (judgment dated March 10, 2021) : 2021 SCC Online SC 206 the Apex Court while considering the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as follows:

"23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record.

24. The question which is raised for consideration is that in what circumstances and categories of cases, a criminal proceeding may be quashed either in exercise of the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, or in the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. This has often been hotly debated before this Court and various High Courts. Though in a series of decisions, this question has been answered on several occasions by this Court, yet the same still comes up for consideration and is seriously debated.

25. In this backdrop, the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC has been examined in the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335).

The relevant para is mentioned hereunder:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

26. This Court has clarified the broad contours and parameters in laying down the guidelines which have to be kept in mind by the High Courts while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The aforesaid principles laid down by this Court are illustrative and not exhaustive. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and the situation which is to be kept in mind when the High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

27. It has been further elucidated recently by this Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 964 where jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC has been analyzed at great length.

28. It is thus settled that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception."

12. In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. : 2002 SCC Online SC 484 the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 27, 38 and 39 that quashing of a criminal case by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be done in exceptional cases only. It was further held that criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud. Paragraphs 27, 38 and 39 are quoted herein:

"27. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the 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.

38. Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent on hearing appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice as held in Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 474.

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. The Complaint Case No.19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C."

Further in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat : 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in para 49 the Apex Court has held as under:

"49. In exercise of power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence."

Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. The accused can raise his grievances while claiming discharge at the appropriate stage before the trial court.

Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicant and the law well settled as stated above, no case for interference is made out.

Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Order Date :- 12.12.2022/Naresh