Allahabad High Court
Satish Chand Baghel vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78054
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12796 of 2016
Applicant :- Satish Chand Baghel
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Yadav,Satish Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Chandraul, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-O.P. no.1 as well as Sri Jitendra Rana, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the Case No.236 of 2016 (State Vs. Satish Chand Baghel) arising out of case crime no.69 of 2015 under sections 332, 506 IPC, P.S. Fatehpur Sikari, District Agra pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Agra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR was lodged on 16.03.2015 by the opposite party no.2, which was registered vide case crime no. 69 of 2015, under Sections 332, 353, 506 IPC, P.S. Fatehpur Sikari, District Agra. In the FIR, it is alleged that the applicant, who is tourist guide had called up opposite party no.2, who was Senior Conservative Assistant, Fatehpur Sikari, District Agra. During the relevant time, the license of the applicant was not renewed, the applicant is said to have called up the opposite party no.2 and threatened him to dire consequences and also threatened that in case his license is not renewed, he will implicate him in different cases. After investigation in the matter, charge sheet was filed on 31.03.2015 under Sections 332, 506 IPC and the court concerned took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 08.01.2016.
4. By means of the instant application, the applicant has challenged the charge sheet as well as cognizance order passed by the trial court.
5. Per contra, Sri Jitendra Rana, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that during the relevant point of time, the applicant did not possess the valid license and his matter was pending in the Court, he used to go to the Archaeological Sites and misbehaved with the tourists and further he was putting undue pressure upon the opposite party no.2 for renewal of his license and the applicant was continuously extending threats to the opposite party no.2, therefore, he had no option but to lodge the FIR against the applicant. He further submits that prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
6. Per contra, S.K. Chandraul, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that the applicant though was a tourist guide but during the relevant time he had no valid license, despite this, he used to go to the Archaeological Sites and illegally extracted money from the foreign tourists, which seriously deteriorated the reputation of the country and further the applicant was continuously pressurizing the opposite party no.2 to renew his license and also threatened him with dire consequences. He further submits that from the averments contained in the FIR, prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
7. 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.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Prajapati
