Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2022
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26551 of 2021
Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of S.S.T No. 124 of 2001 (Kuldeep vs. Ashcharya Lal Kakkar and another), under Section 395 IPC, pending before the Court of Additional District Judge-III, Kanpur Dehat, including the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in aforesaid case.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report of this case was lodged making false and baseless allegations and that during investigation, the involvement of applicant was not found and therefore, police have submitted final report. Learned counsel submitted that the opposite party no.2 has filed a protest petition against the final report and thereafter applicant was summoned. It has further been submitted that applicant has moved an application for discharge which was rejected by the Court below and thereafter applicant has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.10211 of 2002 wherein by order of this Court the proceedings against the applicant were stayed but on 23.06.2017 the said application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for want of prosecution and interim order was vacated. Learned counsel submitted that impugned proceedings are abuse of process of Court. Alternatively, it was also stated that applicant may be granted some interim protection so that he may seeks bail in the said case.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that in view of material on record, a prima facie case 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 applicants, on the basis of which the impugned charge-sheet or proceedings 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 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 3 weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law. For a period of 3 weeks 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 :- 17.5.2022
A. Tripathi
