Allahabad High Court
Abdul Mannan @ Munna vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:16938
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47506 of 2023
Applicant :- Abdul Mannan @ Munna
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manu Ghildyal
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for O.P. no.3 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing charge sheet dated 3.6.2023, cognizance order dated 19.8.2023 and the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No.1050 of 2023 (State vs. Abdul Mannan @ Munna) under Section 13 of Electricity Act, Police Station-Anti Power Theft Kanpur City, District-Anti Power Theft, Kanpur Nagar.
3. O.P. no.2 while checking theft of electricity found theft of electricity in Shop No.A-4 Naveen Fal Mandi, Chakarpur and an FIR was lodged against one Firoz Alam and M/s Nanha Munna & Company on 21.8.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of theft of electricity and the applicant is not named in the FIR. After investigation it was found that the applicant was the person involved in the theft of electricity. He submits that neither the applicant had any concern with the shop, where raid was conducted, nor with the firm M/s Nanhe Munna and Company. There is no public witness of the incident. Applicant has been charge-sheeted in this case only on the basis of similarity of his name with the firm M/s Nanhe Munna and Company. He further submits that the applicant had never indulged in theft of electricity. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that prima facie no case is made out against the applicant. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. no.3 vehemently oppose the application and contend that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.
5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:-
"(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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 to private and personal grudge."
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.
9. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
Manish Himwan
