Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Maurya And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144139
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23251 of 2023
Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Maurya And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Mishra,Vijay Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 20.5.2023 and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 110 of 2022 (Pradeep Kumar Maurya Vs. Ramesh Chandra Maurya and others), under Sections 323, 594, 596, 452 IPC, police station Jafrabad, district Jaunpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-IV, Jaunpur.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 are student and applicant No 6 is Research Scholar and on the date of incident, he was not present on the spot. The complaint has been filed against the applicants on false and concocted allegations. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. No offence is made out against the applicants and under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned summoning order 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 statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC respectively, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
After having heard the submissions of the 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. The applicants have an alternative statutory remedy of moving discharge application 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, the cognizable 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 :- 19.7.2023
Ishrat
