Allahabad High Court
Gyanendra Kumar Gandhi And ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156585
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25106 of 2023
Applicant :- Gyanendra Kumar Gandhi And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 05.04.2023 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 45321 of 2022 (Sonu Vs. Gyanendra Kumar Gandhi and another), under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C./J.M., Moradabad.
Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint dated 06.09.2022 against the applicants for the alleged offence under Section 364, 511, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC alleging inter alia that his father was running a Cardboard (Gatta) Factory, who died on 09.04.2021. After the death of his father, the applicants Gyanendra Kumar Gandhi and Rahul Kumar Gandhi started harassing his mother on the pretext that a sum of Rs. 30-35 lacs was due on his father and started threatening to grab her house. On 03.09.2022, they forcibly entered into his house and tried to abduct him. They have also forcibly taken his signatures on the stamp and blank papers and after recording conversation, fled away from the spot giving threat to his life. On the said complaint, the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 05.04.2023 after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. to face trial under Sections 504, 506 IPC, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present application.
Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that during lifetime of father of opposite party no.2, there was money transaction between the applicants and father of opposite party no. 2. When the applicants demanded their money, opposite party no. 2 refused to make settlement of account and filed a complaint on the false and concocted allegations whereas no such incident took place as alleged in the complaint. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence is made out against the applicants. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned summoning order dated 05.04.2023 against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants submitted that considering the allegations made in the complaint as well as statements of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC respectively, offence against the applicants is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
After having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that the grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. At the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
This Court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put to an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in complaint and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
This Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2023
Shubham
