Allahabad High Court
Adarsh Singh And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 July, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153748
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24005 of 2023
Applicant :- Adarsh Singh And 10 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- K.K.Rao,Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 01.04.2023 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 16604 of 2022 (Akash Singh Vs. Adarsh Singh and others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 342 and 379 I.P.C., Police Station-Ramgarh Taal, District-Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur.
3-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that with regard to an incident dated 31.05.2022 Harshit Singh lodged F.I.R. on 17.06.2022 under Sections 323, 427, 504, 325 I.P.C. registered at Case Crime No. 0240 of 2022 against Akash Singh (opposite party no.2), Pawan Singh, Kaushal Singh and Dhruv Narayan Singh. Regarding the same incident, efforts were made by the opposite party no. 2 to lodge the F.I.R. but F.I.R. of his side was not lodged, thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed a complaint dated 24.06.2022 against eighteen accused persons including the applicants. On the said complaint, the learned Magistrate after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the applicant nos. 1 to 10 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 342 I.P.C. and applicant no.11 under Section 379 I.P.C. vide order dated 01.04.2023.
4-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case by the opposite party no.2 making general allegations against them. In fact no such incident took place as alleged by the opposite party no.2. No specific role has been attributed to the applicants. In the complaint, eighteen persons have been implicated but the complainant in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. took the name of only eleven persons who are applicants in the present application, which shows that complaint has been filed on the false and concocted allegations. It is also submitted that the complainant has implicated the entire family members of the applicant no.1 due to previous enmity and dispute between the parties. Since, with regard to incident dated 31.05.2022, F.I.R. was lodged from the side of applicants on 17.06.2022, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 with a view to mount pressure upon the applicant no.1, filed a false complaint against the applicants. Lastly, it is submitted that no offence is made out against the applicants. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned summoning order and criminal proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed by this Court.
5-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 Cr.P.C. 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.
6-After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that regarding the incident dated 31.05.2022, F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of the applicants and complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 as noted above. 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.
7-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.
8-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.
9-The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
10-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2023
Kashifa
