Allahabad High Court
Deep Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 June, 2022
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7941 of 2022
Applicant :- Deep Singh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Narayan Shukla,Rakesh Narain Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the applicants seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the chargesheet dated 27.12.2020 and the cognizance order dated 26.5.2021 including the further proceedings of Case No. 1691 of 2021 arising out of crime no. 0727 of 2020, under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C. police station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report has been registered on the basis of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The incident is shown to be dated 13.6.2020 while the first information report has been lodged on 25.11.2020. The supplementary report is dated 3.12.2020. The witness Pradeep has not supported the prosecution version, hence, the prayer to quash the chargesheet is made.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and argued that injuries sustained by Ram Das are grievous, hence, there is no scope of quashing the F.I.R.
In M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Vs. Md Sharaful Haque and another, judgment dated 1.11.2004, the Apex Court held that exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule, which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. All Courts whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provisions, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice.
In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Cr. Appeal No. 330 of 2021 decided on 13.4.2021, the Apex Court has given some guidelines regarding disposal of application under section 482 of Code;
(iv) The power or quashing should be exercises sparingly with the circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare case ( not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
(xiv) Extraordinary of inherent power to the Court do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
(xv) Court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence.
If we go through the record, it is clear that the incident is dated 13.6.2020. It is true that the first information report has been registered on 25.11.2020. This delay is caused because the first information report is shown to be registered on the basis of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The incident is dated 13.6.2020 and the injury reports of both the injured are dated 13.6.2020. It is true that the supplementary report is dated 3.12.2020. But in the report itself it is mentioned that this report was filed on the basis of injury report prepared by the same doctor on 13.6.2020 and on the basis of report of radiologist dated 16.6.2020. As per the record, the injuries alleged to be inflicted by the present applicant to the opp. party no. 2 are found to be grievous in nature, in my opinion. Thus, prima facie a cognizance offence can be said to be made out against the applicant. This court has no jurisdiction to inter into the merits of the case and it cannot hold any inquiry in the matter.
No good ground ground is shown to interfere in the impugned charge-sheet. The application is devoid of merits.
However, the prayer as made by the learned counsel for the applicants is allowed to the extent that if the applicants appear before the court below within a period of 10 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the court concerned expeditiously in view of law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (95) ACC 950.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 6.6.2022/
Gss
