Allahabad High Court
Bhagwani Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 May, 2022
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11415 of 2022
Applicant :- Bhagwani Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause, during the course of the day.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the summoning order dated 07.07.2021 and the charge-sheet dated 14.01.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.12483 of 2021 (State Vs. Om Prakash Yadav and others), case crime no.285 of 2020, under Section 147, 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 and 325 IPC, P.S. Mirjamurad, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. X-Varanasi.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and that no prima facie case is made out against her. The first information report of this case has been lodged against nine accused persons including applicant, making general allegations against all the accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to applicant. Referring to statements of injured and other witnesses, it has been submitted that whole family of applicant has been named in the first information report. Learned counsel submitted that in view of above stated facts, no prima facie case is made out against applicant.
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.
Similarly so far as the impugned summoning order is concerned, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned order has been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power can not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.
After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned charge-sheet 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 applicants, on the basis of which the impugned charge-sheet 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 45 days from today and applies for bail, her bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 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 :- 16.5.2022
Neeraj
