Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2481 (ALL)

Prem Pal v. State of U. P.

2014-08-13

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1244 of 2013 whereby the First Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Budaun has passed the summoning order against the applicants on 23.9.2011 to face trial under Sections 435, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Gunnaur, district Sambhal. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that on frivolous allegations the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint against the applicants. The court below has also proceeded in a perfunctory manner by recording the statement of the complainant and of the witnesses and has prima facie found that the offence is made out against the applicants and passed the order summoning the applicants to face trial under Sections 435, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. 4. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid order was challenged by filing a criminal revision before the court below, which was rejected by order dated 17.2.2014 directing the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case. There is great rivalry between the applicants and the opposite party no.2 and with frivolous allegations the complaint has been filed, which is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law. Now non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants. The applicants are ready to appear before the court concerned, therefore, some protection may be granted to appear before the court below. 5. Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the bare perusal of allegations made in the complaint prima facie offence has been made out against the applicants, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below taking cognizance against the applicants. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre-trial stage. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise their objection at the appropriate stage. 6. From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants. 7. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise their objection at the appropriate stage. 6. From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants. 7. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases: - (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866 , (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Crl) 192. 8. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised: -(i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 9. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. 10. In the result, the prayer for quashing of charge sheet as well as the entire proceeding is refused. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. 10. In the result, the prayer for quashing of charge sheet as well as the entire proceeding is refused. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage. 11. However, the applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously keeping in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati & another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and is also approved by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (2) Crimes 4 (S.C.) after hearing the Public Prosecutor. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.