Allahabad High Court
Smt. Gomti Devi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 June, 2022
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14077 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Gomti Devi And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge sheet dated 08.12.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.346/2021, under Section 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that first information report of this case has been lodged by opposite party no.2 after about six months of the incident, which raises a serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution version. In the injury report, the single injury has been shown on body of complainant/injured and that impugned charge-sheet has been submitted against four persons. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants. Learned counsel has referred the statements of complainant and other witnesses and submitted that there is no reliable evidence against them and thus, no case is made out against applicants.
Learned AGA has opposed the application and argued that in the alleged incident complainant/injured has sustained fracture in occipital bone of skull and thus, a case under Section 308 IPC is made out and that all the four applicants are named in first information report as well as in statement of complainant. It was submitted that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against applicants.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.
The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and 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.
In view of the material on record and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case ofState of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 and State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings, charge sheet or cognizance order is made out. Hence, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case, applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 6.6.2022
Neeraj
