Allahabad High Court
Sanju @ Ajay Pratap Singh And 3 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23585 of 2021
Applicant :- Sanju @ Ajay Pratap Singh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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. 635 of 2020 (Fareed Ahmad vs. Jitendra and others), under Sections 395, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Narahat, District Lalitpur, pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions/Special Judge (DAA Act), Lalitpur and also to quash the summoning order dated 10.12.2020, passed in aforesaid case.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned complaint was filed making false and baseless allegations. Earlier regarding the alleged incident dated 20.06.2019, the opposite party no.2/complainant has lodged a non-cognizable report under Sections 323, 504 IPC but the complainant did not move any application under Section 155(2) for investigation and later on the impugned complaint was filed. Learned counsel further submitted that during inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., one Bhallu and Jagbhan have been examined and that earlier in the year 2017 applicant no.4 Ram Milan has lodged the first information report against them and thus, the said witnesses are inimical to the applicants. Learned counsel has referred the statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that their statements are not reliable and no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
Per contra learned A.G.A. argued that in view of allegations made in complaint and the statements of complainant and of witnesses, it cannot be said that prima facie case is not made out against the applicants.
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.
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.
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. In the instant case no case for quashing of impugned order is made out.
Accordingly, the prayer as made above is 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 the applicants in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 20.5.2022
A. Tripathi
