Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Singh Priydarshi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Civil ... on 12 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74446
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10091 of 2024
Applicant :- Pankaj Singh Priydarshi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Pandey,Shitla Prasad Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 25.08.2023 as well as non-bailable warrant dated 16.09.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.81445 of 2023, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 25.08.2023 is not in conformity with the averments made in the complaint filed against the applicant. He also submits that even no prima facie case is disclosed against the applicant, however, learned Judicial Magistrate without applying his judicial mind passed the impugned summoning order. Thus, that even prima facie no offence is disclosed against the applicant, despite this fact, he has been summoned to face the trial which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial. At this initial stage, the fact of innocence of the applicant can also not be determined.
5. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the sufficiency of the material and the test to be applied at the stage of issue of process has been considered in the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2012) 11 SCC 465, wherein it has been reiterated that the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt".
6. He has also drawn attention of this Court to a recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, wherein it has been held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".
7. On the basis of the aforesaid, he submits that no interference with the impugned summoning order and proceedings is warranted at this stage and, therefore, the application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
8. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. In this regard reference may be made to a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal, (2003) 4 SCC 139.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 745 has categorically held that while issuing process, the Magistrate must not anticipate the decision Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry.
10. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 4 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that whether evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the grounds which have been taken to quash the impugned order dated25.08.2023 call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. Therefore, this Court does not find any justification to quash the proceedings against the applicant as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by Hon'ble the Supreme Court which may justify their quashing.
12. Accordingly, prayer of quashing the impugned summoning order dated 25.08.2023 and proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby refused.
13. It is needless to mention here that in the eventuality of filing of any application for cancellation of process issued against the applicant/praying for bail within four weeks from today, the learned trial Court shall dispose of such application on its own merits, expeditiously, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 9 SCC 791 and Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others : (2007) 12 SCC 1 in respect of issuance of non-bailable warrant and in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/2021 by keeping the process, if any, which is found to be issued against the present applicant in abeyance for the aforesaid period only.
14. In view of the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 12.11.2024
A.Dewal
