Sajid Ali @ Guddu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 26531 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188387
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20489 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sajid Ali @ Guddu And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Pathak
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 08.01.2023 submitted by the police against the applicants in Crime Case No.232 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 420, 427, 447, 365, 386, 143, 120B IPC, Police Station: Tiwaripur, District: Gorakhpur as well as to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.05.2023 passed by Learned Magistrate and to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.27561 of 2023, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur.

3. Respondent no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R., being Case Crime No. 0232 of 2022 dated 15.11.2022, with an averment that present applicants have illegally tried to encroach upon the agricultural property of the first informant. On 25.11.2022 at about 7.30 p.m. present applicants along with their accomplice have kidnapped the first informant and forced him to sit in four wheeler, which was without number plate, and at some secluded place he has been forced to put his thumb impression on some blank papers/blank stamp paper and there is a possibility of misusing those papers by the accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has tried to submit that false and malicious prosecution has been instituted against the present applicants on the instigation of local police officials, who were annoyed with the present applicants. It is further submitted that applicant no. 1 has purchased partial area of the land in question through registered sale deed dated 27.04.2005, therefore, he cannot be said to be trespasser to the property in question. Learned counsel for the applicants has also emphasized the agreement for sale deed dated 15.03.2022 said to have been executed by opposite party no. 2 in favour of third person and submits that there was no occasion for kidnapping the present applicant on 25.11.2022 and obtaining his thumb impression on the blank papers/stamp paper. Learned counsel for the applicants has also tried to question the investigation and the investigation report submitted by the Investigating Officer with an averment that proper investigation has not been conducted in the instant matter and no unimpeachable material has been submitted by the Investigating Officer along with the charge sheet to strengthen the inculpating of the present applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has also made emphasis on the absence of medical report showing the inflicted injuries to the other side (opposite party no. 2).

5. Per contra, learned learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that on the face of record complicity of the present applicants in the commission of crime, as mentioned in the first information report, cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that at this juncture no legal ground is made out to quash the entire criminal proceeding in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Submissions as raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are relates to the facts of the instant matter. From the perusal of record on board, prima facie, complicity of the present applicants in commission of crime cannot be ruled out. The question as raised by the learned counsel for the applicants with respect to the incident dated 25.11.2022, wherein opposite party no. 2 has been kidnapped and his thumb impressions have forcefully been obtained on the blank papers/blank stamp paper and the alleged glitches in the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer, are matter of scrutiny, which can more appropriately be examined by the learned trial court and, in case, there is any shortcomings in the investigation, same can be questioned at the relevant stage of trial. 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 applicants, which can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by the trial court after appraising the evidence on record. Neither there is any abuse of process of law nor any compelling circumstance to secure the ends of justice. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how present applicants are prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to them, owing to the summoning order dated 16.05.2023. Record reveals that learned counsel for the applicants has raised disputed question of fact qua involvement of present applicants in the incident in question.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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."

10. 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.

11. 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."

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the averments made in the present application, prayer for quashing the same is refused as made in instant application.

17. However, it is provided that in case applicants move an appropriate application for discharge along with a certified copy of this order before the concerned Court below, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court below as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court.

18. If the concerned Court feels persuaded to have the view that accused ought not to have been summoned and charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the Court below holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.

19. With the aforesaid conspectus, this application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 27.9.2023

Pkb/