Allahabad High Court
Ishwar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 August, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163103
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29433 of 2023
Applicant :- Ishwar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Chand Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the bailable warrant dated 15.11.2022 in S.T. No. 192 of 2017 ( State Vs. Nand Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0446 of 2016, under Sections 304/34, 323/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C, P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnore, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 6, Bijnor.
3. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant is employee of police department and applicant was not named in the F.I.R.; the charge sheet has not been submitted against him; he has been summoned only on the statement of P.W.1; the applicant was not present at the time of incident. He next submits that applicant is enlarged on bail as no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that according to statement of P.W. 1, offence under the alleged section is made out against the applicant and trial is under progress. The plea that he was not present at the time of incident, will be considered by the trial court. There is no illegality in the order impugned.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:-
"14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."
6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another has held that:
"To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."
7. 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen.
8. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of 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 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2023
Meenu Singh
