Allahabad High Court
Surendra Pal Singh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 February, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19454
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37764 of 2024
Applicant :- Surendra Pal Singh And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Praksah
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 23.09.2024 as well as order dated 30.03.2024, of Complaint Case No. 1406 of 2024 (Lalita Chaudhary Vs. Surendra Pal and others), under Sections 147, 323, 427, 354, 354Ka, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. The dispute between the parties relates to property and that the opposite party no.2 has already lost in civil case, which was decided vide order dated 18.07.2011. One Satyketu has misled the inhabitants of the area that they have won the case and opposite party no.2 and others entered into property in question. The applicants have filed a suit for declaration vide O.S. No.1172 of 2019 and in that matter Kamla Devi wife of Satyketu and other persons, namely, Saroj Bansal, Manish gupta, Bhoop Singh, Omveer Singh and Dr. Chandrasen Sharma have filed an application for impleadment, which was dismissed by the Civil Court. They have preferred a revision against that order, which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2020. When the opposite party no.2 and others could not get any relief in civil side, they have lodged the first information report, making false and baseless allegations. After investigation, police have submitted final report in favour of applicants and thereafter the protest petition of opposite party no.2 was registered as a complaint case. There are contradictions in the statements of witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. All the injured persons have not been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the learned trial Court has not considered facts of the matter in correct perspective and committed error by summoning the applicants. Essentially, the dispute relates to property and the opposite party no.2 and others could not get any relief in civil suit. Referring to case of Mohanbhai Ganeshbhai Lakhani V State of Gujarat (SLP No. 10982 of 2023), decided on 16.04.2024, it was submitted that no case is made out against the applicants.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the protest petition of the opposite party no.2 was registered as a complaint case and that the complainant has supported said version in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In the alleged incident, Ritu and Saroj Bansal has also sustained injuries in the incident which took place in public park. The version of complainant is further supported by witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Injured Ritu Chaudhary has also supported the version of complainant.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.
7. It is also settled view that where dispute between the contesting parties is predominantly civil in nature and the criminal proceedings have been used to settle the civil dispute, such proceedings cannot be permitted to continue. However, where a prima facie criminal offence is made out, the criminal proceedings cannot be stalled, merely because the civil suit is pending with reference to same set of document. It is not a hard and fast rule that both the cases can not continue together. Therefore, mere pendency of the civil suit seeking declaration in respect of the same document cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings.
8. In case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2021 SC 5298:2021 SCC OnLine SC 976, somewhat similar controversy was involved and after considering various earlier judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court held that although there is perhaps not even an iota of doubt that a singular factual premise can give rise to a dispute which is both, of a civil as well as criminal nature, each of which could be pursued regardless of the other. The Court further held that only on the ground that complainant instituted multiple civil suit, it is not necessary that it was only to import it a criminal colour and ultimately the Court has to scrutinize, whether the relevant ingredients for a criminal case are even prima facie made out or not. The Court has also taken note that the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely because the dispute was referred to arbitration and arbitration proceedings had taken place thereafter. Thus the position of law is very well settled that even if the civil case is pending for consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the same can not be the ground to quash the criminal proceedings, as the object of suit and the criminal proceedings are entirely different.
9. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report on 10.06.2019 against applicants, alleging that on 10.06.2019 at about 12:00 noon, a JCB belonging to Municipal Corporation came in public park for cleaning the same and several persons including, women, were cooperating in that. At the same time applicants have assaulted the complainant and others and in the alleged incident one Ritu, Manju and Saroj Bansal have sustained injuries. After investigation, police have submitted final report in favour of applicants. The protest petition of complainant was registered as a complaint case and thereafter applicants were summoned by impugned order dated 23.09.2024. It is correct that there was some civil litigation regarding property but there is nothing to show that the said litigation pertains to public park. Further, in the alleged incident, three persons have sustained injuries and the version of complainant is supported by the witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Injured have also supported prosecution version. The allegation of assault, outraging modesty and causing injuries can not be a subject matter of civil case. In case of Mohanbhai Ganeshbhai Lakhani (supra), the sale deed of disputed property was executed in favour of the appellants and mutation of the same was upheld by the revenue courts. Further, in that case in the first case lodged against appellants, after investigation police have submitted closure report and after that second first information report was lodged in same matter. In view of those attending facts the proceedings were quashed. The facts of the present are on quite different footing and thus, said case law does not help the applicants. In the instant matter several persons have sustained injuries. In fact the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In view of allegations made in the complaint, statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.
10. However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge through counsel before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application for discharge is filed within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, provided the applicants cooperate in early disposal of discharge application.
11. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 11.2.2025
'SP'/-
