Allahabad High Court
Inderjit Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:183600
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13167 of 2023
Applicant :- Inderjit Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh,Shivam Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing further proceedings of Case No. 747 of 2002 (State Vs. Narendra singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 61A of 1989, under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 471 and 511 IPC, police station Shankargarh, district Allahabad as well as the non-bailable warrant dated 11.11.2021, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Allahabad.
It is an old matter of the year 1989. The FIR was lodged on 08.4.1989, in which after culmination of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant on 10.11.1089, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 21.11.1990 and summoned the applicant.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence is made out against the applicant. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned charge-sheet, summoning order and N.B.W. against the applicant is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant appeared before the trial court up to 02.11.2001 and thereafter he did not appear and, therefore, bailable warrants were issued against him from 26.2.2002 to 22.4.2007 and thereafter non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant since 28.5.2008, which is operative till date. He further submits that upon perusal of F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicant, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
Having examined the matter in its totality, I find that the applicant is avoiding the process of the Court for more than two decades and is not appearing before the court in spite of continuance non-bailable warrants since 28.5.2008. I also find that the grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put to an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is well settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The applicant has an alternative statutory remedy of moving discharge application at the appropriate stage.
This Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial Court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicant in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
The relief as sought by the applicant through the instant application is hereby refused.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.11.2024
Ishrat
