Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 22906 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170204
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20749 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shree Prakash Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the Charge Sheet dated 26.09.2016, under section 504, 506, 419, 420, 294 I.P.C. and 63/65 Copyright Act, 1957 arising out of Case Crime No.219 of 2015 as well as cognizance /summoning order dated 19.12.2018 issued by the A.C.J.M.-II, Varanasi in Case No. 3311 of 2018 (State Vs. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, pending beforethe Court A.C.J.M-II, Varanasi;

3. Opposite party no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R., being Case Crime No. 0219 of 2015 dated 25.10.2025, leveling allegation of plagiarism against the present applicant with an averment that she has done research work in 2010 titled as Promotion and Nurturing of Rural Enterprises under SGSY in Mirqapur visvis U.P.; that she has been granted certificate for said work in 63rd All India Commerce Conference, Goa scheduled on 25.08.2010; that she has also informed qua her work to the Research Progress Committee of the University in the year 2010, which has been acknowledged by the Committee in its half yearly report i.e. June, 2010 and December, 2010; that accused Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, who was the Associate Editor of Journal of Economics and Commerce A Biannual Journal of DAV PG College, has published the aforesaid research work of opposite party no. 2 showing it as his own research work. At later stage, Sri Rajesh Singh has been suspended from the University owing to financial embezzlement; that he has moved a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2 intending to blackmail her; that he always threatened to opposite party no. 2 and abused her.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. dated 25.10.2015 has been filed in a counterblast to the previous F.I.R., being Case Crime No. 88 of 2014, which was lodged on 23.08.2014 in pursuance of the order passed by the competent court in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the present applicant. It is further submitted that in fact said research work belongs to the present applicant, however, by playing fraud opposite party no. 2 and her accomplice have got the said research work printed in their name. It is further submitted that false and malicious prosecution has been made against the present applicant for the alleged crime of plagiarism, whereas the applicant has never copied or stolen the research work of opposite party no. 2. The sections of Copyright Act as employed against the present applicant are not made out against him. It is further submitted that on the face of record, coupled with the prosecution made on behalf of the present applicant against the opposite party no. 2 and her accomplice, no case is made out against the applicant.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the averment as made in the F.I.R. coupled with the charge sheet and material on record, prima facie, indicates the complicity of the present applicant in commission of crime as narrated in the F.I.R. It is further contended that filing of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. will not mitigate the crime commissioned by the present applicant, which is, prima facie, made out from the record. It is further contended that the innocence of the present applicant, as has been tried to be submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, cannot be inferred at this stage, which can be adjudicated upon by the trial court more appropriately after appraising the evidence on record adduced by the parties. It is next contended that at this juncture no legal ground is made out as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicant, therefore, instant application is liable to be rejected, being misconceived and devoid of merits.

6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that opposite party no. 2 has unequivocally narrated the chain of events leveling allegation of plagiarism against the present applicant, therefore, prima facie, complicity of the present applicant in commission of the crime cannot be ruled out. On the pointed query raised to the learned counsel for the applicant with respect to the final result of the F.I.R., being Case Crime No. 88 of 2014, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the aforesaid case crime number final report had been submitted by the investigating officer. Having been aggrieved, opposite party no. 2 has filed the protest petition, which is pending consideration. On comparative study of F.I.R, being Case Crime No. 0219 of 2015 filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the contents of the F.I.R., being Case Crime No. 88 of 2014, filed on behalf of present applicant, it is evident that opposite party no. 2 is claiming that her research work was completed in the year 2010 under the guidance of Principal Dr. Satyadev Singh and the said research work was presented on Oct. 13, 2010 in 63rd All India Commerce Conference, Goa scheduled on 25.08.2010 and for the said work she has been given certificate. Apart from that, she has also intimated with respect to her research work to the Research Progress Committee of the University, which has acknowledged said report in its half yearly progress report (January, 2010 to December, 2010). However, on the other hand present applicant is claiming that his research work was published in January, 2011 in the Journal of Economics and Commerce. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the conduct of the present applicant, prima facie, appears to be doubtful, which can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by the trial court after appraising the evidence to be adduced by the parties concerned. At this juncture, this Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not expected to conduct a mini trial to examine the innocence of the present applicant. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance after going through the charge sheet and material on record. Considering the case as a whole, as mentioned in the F.I.R., prima facie, involvement of the present applicant cannot be ruled out. Therefore, at this juncture, it would not be befitting to entertain the instant application for the purposes of quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the present applicant.

7. Record reveals that learned counsel for the applicants has raised disputed question of fact qua involvement of present applicant in the incident in question.

8. In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to analyze the factual evidence which is to be placed before the trial court. The power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very specific and wide to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. No provision of this Code is deemed to limit or effect such inherent power of the High Court.

9. It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686 3; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. : (2001) 8 SCC 645; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC 706 that exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception.

10. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in Paragraph 61 which is quoted herein below :-

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR or a complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline en-grafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court."

11. In Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018, Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and others, 2019 (6) SCC 107, the Apex Court has held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidences of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because where there are contradictions or the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidences and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial, when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. The same view has also been reiterated in judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10762 of 2018, Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another.

12. In the case of Priti Saraf & anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. Criminal Appeal No(s). 296 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6364 of 2019] (judgment dated March 10, 2021) : 2021 SCC Online SC 206 the Apex Court while considering the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as follows:

"23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirely shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/ FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record.

13. The scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC has been examined in detail by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335). The relevant para is mentioned hereunder:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bur engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code on the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due 10 private and personal grudge."

14. It has been further elucidated recently by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 964 where jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC has been analysed at great length.

15. Further, in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, Full Bench of the Apex Court while considering the powers of quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India has illustrated the circumstances under which quashing of a criminal case can be done and/or interim order can be granted.

16. Therefore, the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. In absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

17. Having considered the rival submissions advance by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and the material available on record, in the light of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, no ground made out to consider the merits of the instant case. As such, prayer of quashing as made in instant application is hereby refused.

18. Resultantly, instant application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 23.8.2023

Pkb/