Sufiyan And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 10383 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 68
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5235 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sufiyan And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Gupta
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application has been filed by the applicants assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M. Chandauli as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 6771 of 2022 (Muhammad Azam Ansari Vs. Sufiyana and others) under section 427, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Mughalsarai, District Chandauli.

Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 06.05.2022 stating therein that the applicants are belonging to the same family, therefore, the property situated at Mauza Bhisauri over Arazi No. 316 Area 1360 square meter were constructed by the aforesaid persons in their share of property. The opposite party no. 2 returned after a long period to the aforesaid house on 12.04.2022 and found that the accused persons were destroying his house, on objection being raised they started assaulting the opposite party no. 2 as well as other members including nephew of opposite party no. 2 namely Saddam. The opposite party no. 2 and his family members also threatened in case they returned back and raise any claim over the property in question they be ready to face dire consequences. The aforesaid application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is treated as complaint case and after recording the statement u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants have been summoned.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that present complaint has been lodged with malicious intention as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the applicants for the incident dated 12.04.2022 and also to give a criminal colour to the civil litigation between the parties, therefore the proceedings may be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submits that for the same incident dated 12.04.2022, cases have been lodged from both side, it cannot be said that no incident took place. He further submits 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 applicants at this stage. All the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He further submits that regarding civil litigation there is nothing on record to show that civil proceedings are pending between the parties. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details, which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint, except, in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court can not look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking.

The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

"39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence............."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held that though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are wide, however, such powers require care/caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It was clarified that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it was open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.

In the instant case, perusal of the complaint as well as the statements under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. as a whole, this Court finds it difficult to hold that a case, for quashing of the complaint under Section 482 CrPC, has been made out. Criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC only because the compliant has been lodged by malicious intention. In exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a compliant except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The compliant before the learned Magistrate is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception without further trial.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.

The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 10.4.2023

Arti