Allahabad High Court
Prem Narayan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:20407
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45520 of 2023
Applicant :- Prem Narayan And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaytri Rajput,Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Tarun Jha
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, 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 04-11-2023 as well as proceedings of S.T. No. 26 of 2022, arising out of case crime no. 35 of 2022, under Sections 302, 394, 120B IPC, P.S. Ata, district Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.) Jalaun at Orai.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against unknown persons alleging that the murder of his wife was committed by unknown persons after robbing her ornaments. During investigation the I.O. recorded the statements of informant and his son and they have not made any allegations against the applicants. It is further submitted that on 23-04-2022 the police arrested the accused Sevaram and made recovery of the aforesaid ornaments and in his statements also he had not taken the name of the present applicant and the I.O. submitted a charge-sheet dated 06-06-2022 only against Bagat Sevaram. It is further submitted that during trial PW-1 Kamlesh Kumar has taken the name of the applicants. The opposite party no.2 filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the applicants and the court below vide order dated 04-11-2023 has summoned the applicants, which the applicants have challenged in the instant application. He further submits that the applicants have never committed any offence as alleged against them. Further submission is that there is no eye witness or independent witness against the applicants.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that the PW-1 Kanlesh Kumar has disclosed the complicity of the applicants in the crime and the court below has rightly summoned the applicants 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(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 :- 6.2.2024
pks
