Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:62730
Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43255 of 2023
Applicant :- Ran Vijay Singh And 8 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Keshav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Hari Keshav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Ran Vijay Singh, Km. Dimpy Singh @ Radhika, Km. Simpy Singh, Smt. Sarita Devi, Surendra Singh, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Harendra Singh, Rahul Singh and Anand Singh with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the instant 482 Application and aside/quash the charge sheet dated 02.10.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 0153 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 188, 323, 504, 506, 354, 427 IPC, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur as well the entire proceedings of Case No. 525 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 188, 323, 504, 506, 354, 427 IPC, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur pending in the court of A.C.J. (JD) NC IIIrd, District- Jaunpur otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship or pass such other and further order with this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of of Case No. 525 of 2020 pending in the court of A.C.J.. (JD) IIIrd, District- Jaunpur otherwise the Applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship or pass such other and further order with this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present FIR has been lodged with malafide intentions as a counterblast to the FIR lodged from the side of the applicants as case crime No.
1
152 of 2020, under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC. It is submitted that from the side of the applicants Jyoti Singh, Shimpi, Shipra and Arun have received injuries whereas the FIR in which the applicants are prosecuted is against 11 persons including the applicants in which three persons namely Arun Kumar Singh, Chitra Singh and Nikita Singh are injured but the said injuries are totally false and concocted. It is submitted that as a matter of fact some trees were in a dangerous condition which could have fallen down of which a complaint was made from the side of the applicants to the SDM concerned who directed that the said trees be cut down which was the reason for implication of the applicants. It is submitted while placing para 30 of the affidavit that the FIR is a concocted, imaginative, fabricated and counterblast case registered against the applicants and other co- accused persons. It is argued while placing para 36 of the affidavit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present. It is argued that charge sheet against the applicants has been submitted which is totally false and without any credible evince on which the trial court has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants vide order dated 06.11.2023 to face trial. It is argued that as such the proceedings be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that three persons from the side of the prosecution have received injuries, at this stage it cannot be said that the said injuries are false and fabricated. The prosecution case was found to be true and then charge sheet was submitted after investigation on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants. In so far as the argument with regard to the case being counterblast is concerned, the same cannot be looked into at this stage in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023, decided on 10.04.2023 and State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta : (2004) 1
SCC 691.
7. Further in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. :
(1999) 8 SCC 686; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. :
(2001) 8 SCC 645; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs.
2
Mohammd Shariful Haque : (2005) 1 SCC 122; M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava : (2009) 9 SCC 682; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801; Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar : (2019) 6 SCC 107; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC 706; Rajeev Kourav Vs. Balasaheb & others : (2020) 3 SCC 317; Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh : (2020) 12 SCC 467 and Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. :
2002 SCC Online SC 484 that exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinize the complaint /FIR / charge- sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception. It was further held that criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud.
8. In the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate : (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Apex Court relying upon the ratio laid down by it in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has held that power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised invoking these powers. In the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat : 2022 SCC Online SC 936 the Apex Court has held that in exercise of power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence.
9. In the case of U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Bhupendra Kumar Modi : (2009) 2 SCC 147, Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2013) 14 SCC 44, Sonu Gua Vs. Deepak Gupta and others : (2015) 3 SCC 424 it has been held that while issuing summons to accused u/s 204 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has only to see whether allegations made in complaint are prima facie sufficient to proceed against the accused. Magistrate need not enquire into merits or demerits of case.
10. In the cases of Bhushan Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi :
(2012) 2 SCC 424, Nupur Talwar Vs. CBI : (2012) 11 SCC 465, Dy. Chief Controller Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal : (2003) 4 SCC 139 and Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of W.B. : (2000) 1 SCC 722 it has been held by the Apex Court that in determining the
3
question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is 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 enquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. There is no legal requirement imposed on a magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Section 204 Cr.P.C. does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons.
11. Further in the case of Priti Saraf & anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. : 2021 SCC Online SC 206 the Apex Court while considering the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying upon the judgements rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : (1992) Suppl
(1) SCC 335 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others : (2021) 2 SCC 427 has held that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.
12. Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into and as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused.
13. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicants and the law as stated above, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is thus dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.4.2024/M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)
4