Allahabad High Court
Sudadhu Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17833
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2156 of 2024
Applicant :- Sudadhu Lal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jagadish Prasad Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri J.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K. Rai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing the impugned order dated 29-03-2017 as well as non-bailable warrant and entire proceedings of Case No. 3012 of 2012 (State Vs. Sudadhu Lal), arising out of Case Crime No. 295 of 2012, under Sections 3-5-A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and 3/11 of Animal Cruelty Act and 48, 49, 52, 54, 56 of Transportation Act, P.S. Aurai, district Bhadohi, pending in the court Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case the opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. on 10-09-2012 under Sections 3-5-A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and 3/11 of Animal Cruelty Act and 48, 49, 52, 54, 56 of Transportation Act, with an allegation that during checking of vehicle the police party caught Truck which was illegally over loaded with bullocks was being taken for slaughtering . The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the court has taken cognizance vide order dated 24-12-2012. It is further submitted that the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant has earlier filed an application U/S 482 No. 35588 of 2019 in which this Court vide order dated 25-09-2019 granted time to the applicant to appear and avail bail. The bail was granted and thereafter he jumped the bail and purposely did not appear before the court below and non-bailable warrant has been issued, which the applicant has challenged in the instant application.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. Sri A.K.Rai opposes the present application and submits that the applicant has been deliberately absconding, hence, he deserves no leniency by this Court.
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(s). 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(s). 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
pks
