Allahabad High Court
Dev Narayan vs State Of U.P And Another on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10794 of 2022
Applicant :- Dev Narayan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
The present application has been filed for quashing the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 23.03.2022 as well as entire proceedings of complainant case no.1759 of 2018 (Sundari Vs. Prem Narayan), under Section 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Offence Against Women, Court No.37, Jaunpur.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that impugned proceedings have been initiated on the basis of false and baseless allegations and that prima facie no case is made out against the applicant. It has been submitted by learned counsel that opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against applicant and others making false and baseless allegations and that the said application was registered as a complainant case and after that summoning order dated 16.01.2021 has been passed. Learned counsel submitted that the matter is civil in nature and prima facie no case is made out against applicant. Statements of complainant and other witnesses were referred and it is submitted that no prima facie case is made out and that impugned summoning order has been passed without considering the matter in correct perspective. It was also stated that applicant is a senior citizen aged about 66 years and that he is suffering from several ailments and his medical documents have been annexed as Annexure-4 to the application.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.
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 applicant 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.
After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicant, on the basis of which the impugned complaint can be quashed going by the settled law in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing of impugned proceedings is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case, applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 12.5.2022
Neeraj
