Ramkrit And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3125 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5170 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Ramkrit And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh K. Dwivedi,Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Matter taken up in the revised list.

Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 23.11.2021.

As per the office report dated 27.01.2022 notice has been served on the opposite party no.2.

Perusal of the orders dated 10.03.2022 and 07.04.2022 passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court shows that Sri Bijai Prakash Tiwari, Advocate had appeared for the opposite party no.2 on the said dates before the concern Court.

The office as per its report dated 13.04.2022 has reported that no vakalatnama has been filed by the said counsel. The same was even observed in the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the office has reported that as per online status vakalatnama is yet to be filed on behalf of the private respondent.

No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.

The present appeal has been filed before this Court with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of judgment and order dated 05.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mau in Complaint Case No. 88 of 2020 (Leelawati Vs. Ramkrit and others) whereby the learned Court below has summoned the present appellants for facing the trial as accused in relation to the Complaint Case No. 88 of 2020 (Leelawati Vs. Ramkrit and others), or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the appellants will suffer great irreparable loss and injury."

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in so far as the allegations regarding offences under the SC/ST Act are concerned, the same are false and incorrect. It is further argued that in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. it is stated that accused persons entered inside the house of the complainant Leelawati and committed offence and as such the offences under the SC/ST Act would not be made out as the same have to be in public view which is not the present case. It is argued that there is a reference in the complaint of land bearing Araji No. 1197M having a Rakba of 161 Air situated in village Raini, Pargana Mohammadabad, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau and the said land was in the possession of the father of the appellant no.1, however, Raghunath was claiming the said land as being a member of Schedule Caste. A civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 412 of 1998 was filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mau by Raghunath against the father of the appellant no.1. In the said suit, compromise was entered into between the parties which was verified by the concerned court and on the basis of the said compromise, the said suit was decided and a decree was prepared. It is argued that only on account of some dispute being civil in nature, the complaint has been filed in which the appellants are not involved in the present case. It is further argued that the complainant Leelawati was medically examined but she had only made complaints of pain which was noted in her medical examination report and the same were three in number. The doctor had kept injury no.1 under observation whereas no opinion was given with regards to injury no.2 and 3. The appellants have no criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit in support of the appeal.

Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that in so far as the allegations relating to offences under the SC/ST Act are concerned, there is no averment that the accused persons entered into the house of complainant and hurled the caste words but the specific allegation is that the accused persons reached the house of the complainant and then used caste related words. It is argued that the impugned order is a detailed order passed by the court below after considering the material on record, there is no illegality or irregularity said order. The complainant is the injured in the matter.

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that it cannot be said that no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. The complainant is the injured in the matter. The impugned order is a detailed order in which there is no illegality or irregularity.

Further, in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : Criminal Appeal No(s). 330 of 2021 (judgment dated April 13, 2021) the Apex Court while considering the powers of quashing has illustrated the circumstances under which quashing of a criminal case can be done. It has been held as follows:

"i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Office to communicate this order to the trial court within two weeks.

Order Date :- 17.5.2022

M. ARIF

(Samit Gopal, J.)