Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90382
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34896 of 2023
Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ch. Dil Nisar,Rohit Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Ch. Dil Nisar, learned counsel for the applicant, 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 applicant praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.1841 of 2012 (Pinku @ Tinku vs. Surendra and others) under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Gagalheri, District-Saharanpur pending in the Court of J.M. 2nd, Saharanpur along with summoning order dated 29.09.2015, whereby the applicant was summoned under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC as well as revisional court order dated 20.05.2022 whereby summoning order is ratified.
3. Initially, O.P. no.2 filed an application U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed and the application was converted into an FIR on 22.02.2007 against seven accused including the present applicant. As per FIR, on 06.12.2006, all the accused armed with deadly weapons entered the house of informant, used abusive language against him and threatened him to teach lesson for lodging case against them. When family members of informant objected, accused Surendra and Pankaj (applicant herein) put a country made pistol on his temporal region. Accused Dilip attacked him with knife which caused deep cut injury over his right eye whereas accused Balwant and Amru assaulted the informant with lathi and accused Suresh with rod. When the informant raised alarm, his brother, other family members and some villagers came there and saved him.
4. After completion of investigation, I.O. submitted final report on 07.06.2007. Thereafter, O.P. no.2 had filed protest petition on 25.04.2008, which has been treated as complaint case by the concerned Court and summons has been issued against the applicant on 29.05.2015. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred criminal revision, which has been dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2022. By the instant application, summoning order dated 29.05.2015 as well as revisional order dated 20.05.2022 have been challenged by the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the witnesses have not supported the complaint case in their statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against him. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another, 2013(2) SCC 488 and also on the matter of Deepak Gaba and others vs. State of U.P. and another passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2002 on 02.01.2023. 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 complaint case is fully corroborated by the statements of witnesses and the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.
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. 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 :- 20.5.2024
Manish Himwan
