Allahabad High Court
Rama Prasad Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78764
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34535 of 2016
Applicant :- Rama Prasad Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Vikram Singh
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. 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 applicants praying for quashing summoning order dated 06.10.2016 as well as the criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.357 of 2015 (Om Prakash Singh vs. Rama Prasad Singh and others), under Sections 419, 420 IPC, Police Station-Rampur, District-Jaunpur pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. 4th, Jaunpur.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.2 has passed away during pendency of the instant application, hence, the instant application survives only qua applicant nos.1 and 3.
4. A complaint was filed on 18.08.2014 by O.P. no.2 in which it was alleged that the applicants prepared forged document for election and submitted the same before the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. It is further alleged that one of the members whose name was shown in the voter list, had died prior to the election. It is further alleged that the applicants wanted to take over the management by preparing forged documents and applicant no.1, who was President of the Management of Institution, he wanted to take over the entire management illegally. After conducting enquiry, summoning order was passed on 06.10.2016, which has been challenged in this application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is serious dispute between two rival societies out of which one committee was of the applicants and other was of the opposite parties. For adjudication of dispute, Joint Director, Varanasi has appointed Authorized Controller. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the complaint on the basis of statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He submits that summoning order has been passed without application of judicial mind. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mehmood Ul Rehman and others vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others, (2015) 0 Supreme (SC) 351. He further submits that the applicants have never committed any offence as alleged against them. No offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that the applicants are trying to capture the entire society and college without holding any election. He further submits that in the voter list submitted by the applicants contained the name of person, who had died and the entire voter list was forged one. Forged signatures were also prepared of some persons on the documents of the society. He further submits that it is not a case where summoning order has been passed without application of mind and the ratio of Mehmood Ul Rehman's case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for applicants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submits that 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.
7. It is a case where there is dispute between two rival parties and looking to the dispute the Joint Director, Varanasi has appointed Authorized Controller for its adjudication. The allegations made in the complaint against the applicants shows that prima facie case is made out against them. 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 applicants. 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 :- 2.5.2024
Manish Himwan
