Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 July, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152435
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25403 of 2023
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shreesh Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Pal Singh
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; counsel for the opposite party no. 2; 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 impugned order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandausi, District Sambhal whereby the applicant has been summoned under Sections 196, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C., in Complaint Case No285 of 2022, pending before the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandausi.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that from the perusal of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant and its witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Further submission is that civil suit is pending between the parties.
4. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and has submitted that the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Counsel for the opposite party submits that there is serious allegation against the applicant that on account of forged High Court order, he got the stay order. At this stage, the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. cannot be examined by this Court.
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 a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has passed the said order after having found prima facie case made out against the applicant and cognizable offence is disclosed from the perusal of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant and its witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
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. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2023
Meenu Singh
