Ramakant Yadav vs State Of U.P.And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 524 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ramakant Yadav vs State Of U.P.And Another on 8 January, 2024

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Reserved
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:3275
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31057 of 2023
 
Applicant :- Ramakant Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh Shukla,Bheem Sen,Bipin Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 27.05.2023 and cognizance order dated 28.06.2023, of Session Trial No. 440 of 2023, (State vs. Ramakant Yadav), under Section - 272, 273 I.P.C. and Section - 60 Excise Act, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Azamgarh.

2. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant and Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report was lodged against Rangesh Kumar Yadav and unknown persons alleging that on 21.02.2022, after receipt of information that some persons have died due to consumption of spurious liquor and some have lost their eye sight, the Excise Inspector along with police officials conducted a raid at the desi liquor shop, where 4 cartoons, each having 45 quarter bottles, containing spurious/adulterated liquor were recovered. Similarly 145 other cartoons, each having 45 quarter bottles were also recovered. On the recovered quarter bottles, the QR code was lying damaged. It was submitted that the licensee of said liquor shop was Rangesh Kumar Yadav and the applicant has no concern with business of alleged shop. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. He is neither the licensee of the said shop nor he has any concern with it. After arrest of co-accused Rangesh Yadav, he had disclosed names of certain other co-accused persons and on that basis 12 more persons were introduced as accused but applicant was not named by them. No co-accused has named the applicant. It was submitted that applicant is a renowned political leader and he had been a Member of Parliament for four times and M.L.A. for five times and at the time of incident he was M.L.A. from Samajwadi Party and that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to political reasons at behest of the present government. It was pointed out that the F.S.L. report has received before filing charge-sheet against 13 accused persons and as per F.S.L. report urea contents were found negative and the contents were having ethanol, which is commonly know as ethyl alcohol and thus, no offence under Section 272, 273 I.P.C. is made out. After filing of charge sheet against 13 co-accused persons, the Investigating Officer kept the investigation pending and after seven months of registration of first information report, the Investigating Officer recorded in the Case Diary that he has received information that applicant-accused Ramakant Yadav was also involved in the incident and that co-accused Rangnath Yadav and others were doing business of illicit liquor at behest of applicant-accused, whereas no witness has made any statement against the applicant-accused. After that, the Investigating Officer claimed to have recorded statements of one Dileep and Smt. Jyoti in order to develop accusation against the applicant, whereas these witnesses in their earlier statements, have not named the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that involvement of the applicant was belatedly developed and in fact applicant was implicated due to political vendetta and there is no credible evidence against him. Without collecting any credible evidence, the Investigating Officer has charge sheeted the applicant after 14 months by way of supplementary charge sheet. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without considering material on record and later on committed the case to the court of Sessions. The entire proceedings are malafide and result of vindictive politics and that no case is made out against the applicant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application and submitted that during investigation, the involvement of applicant was revealed. The applicant has been charge-sheeted after collecting sufficient evidence. It was submitted that the de-facto proprietor of the concerned liquor shop is applicant-accused and he was running the same in the name of co-accused Rangesh Yadav. In the alleged incident, 9 persons have lost their lives by consuming spurious liquor purchased from the said shop, which was in the name of co-accused Rangesh Kumar Yadav but it's actual control is with applicant. The applicant is a hardened criminal, having criminal history of 52 cases. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred statements of witnesses and submitted that some of the witnesses have clearly stated that said liquor shop was being run by the applicant-accused in the name of co-accused Rangesh Yadav and that applicant-accused was involved in business of preparation and selling of spurious liquor and due to terror of applicant-accused no one from public dares to name him. In this connection, statement of one Khedu, Sangeeta Rani and Rajendra Bind were referred. It was submitted that matter involves determination of questions of fact, which can only be done during trial. Referring to material collected during investigation, it was submitted that prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It is well settled that High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding unless the allegations contained, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. The inherent powers for the purpose of quashing proceedings have to be exercised very sparingly. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.

8. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the first information report was lodged against Rangesh Kumar Yadav and unknown persons alleging that on 21.02.2022 after receipt of information that some persons have died due to consumption of spurious liquor and some persons have lost their eye sight, the Excise Inspector along with police officials conducted a raid at the desi liquor shop, where 4 cartoons, each having 45 quarter bottles, containing spurious/adulterated liquor were recovered. Similarly 145 other cartoons, each having 45 quarter bottles were also recovered. On the recovered quarter bottles, the QR code was lying damaged. The licensee of said liquor shop was Rangesh Kumar Yadav. During investigation the involvement of applicant-accused was revealed. Perusal of record shows that during investigation some of the witnesses have clearly stated that said liquor shop was being run by the applicant-accused in the name of co-accused Rangesh Yadav and that applicant-accused was involved in business of preparation and selling of spurious liquor and due to terror of applicant-accused no one from public dares to name him. In view of these facts it could not be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. Merely because the applicant is not named in the first information report or that his involvement was shown after about 7 months of incident, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. At this stage it would be pertinent to refer case of State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, wherein Apex Court has observed that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus:

". ... It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with."

9. In proceedings under section 482 CrPC it is not desirable for the Court to hold a full-fledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence, collected by the investigating agency to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The Supreme Court in the case of M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 has held that interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be where a clear case for such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled for interference even at the preliminary stage by the High Court may result in causing obstruction in progress of the inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in the public interest. But at the same time the High Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of justice so required where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. In such cases refusal to exercise the jurisdiction may equally result in injustice more particularly in cases where the complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint. It is well settled and needs no restatement that the saving of inherent power of the High Court in criminal matters is intended to achieve a salutary public purpose "which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. (See Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, SCC p. 451, para 2.)

10. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 has held as under :

''17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under 29 Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance of by the competent court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.''

11. Thus, it is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is equally settled that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by the Apex Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding. As noted in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), power of quashing of first information report or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful.

12. In the instant case in view of allegations levelled against the applicant and perusing the material collected during investigation, it can not be said that no prima facie is made out against the applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court in case a charge sheet is submitted in this case.

13. In view of aforesaid, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings/charge-sheet or cognizance/summoning order is made out. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit, and thus, liable to be dismissed. However, the applicant would be at liberty to raise his pleas before the trial Court at the stage of charge in accordance with law.

14. With aforesaid observations, the application under Section 482 CrPC, is dismissed.

Order Date :- 08.01.2024

S Rawat/Anand