Allahabad High Court
Hari Om Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 13 April, 2023
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3574 of 2023
Applicant :- Hari Om Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shweta Shukla,Saumya Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Ms Shweta Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anurag Shukla, the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicant-Hari Om Padney, with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 13.03.2023 and and bailable warrant dated 03.04.2023 by which the applicant has been summoned by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-III/Judicial Magistrate, District Ambedkarnagar and charge-sheet dated 29.12.2022 bearing No. 242/2022, Police Station Jahagirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar as well as entire Criminal Proceeding of Case No. 229 of 2022 (State Versus Hari Om Pandey) under Sections 343, 376, 506 I.P.C., pending before the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-III/Judicial Magistrate, District Ambedkar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and another: Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of 2022 decided on 12.08.2022 and submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant. As per the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim the applicant has committed rape three days regularly with the victim and the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case referred by learned counsel for the applicant.
At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the summoning order/bailable warrant in case in hand cannot be interfered with as prima facie commission of an offence is made out against the applicant. In the result, the prayer for quashing of the impugned order is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.4.2023
Arvind
