Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1924 (ALL)

Chhatar Singh @ Bittu v. State of U. P.

2015-07-16

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2015
JUDGMENT Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 217A of 2015, dated 18.1.2015 arising out of case crime no.255 of 2013, under Sections 147,148,323,504,506,307 IPC, P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Ghaziabad. 3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is malicously being prosecuted in the present case when no offence against the him is disclosed. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant in perfunctory manner and the court below has taken cognizance of the offence in a pedantic manner without applying judicious mind when no prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Therefore, the criminal prosecution of the applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of law which is liable to be quashed. It is pointed out that after filing of the charge sheet both the parties are ready to compromise their dispute. 4. Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Section 307 IPC also which is non-cognizable offence. From the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. 5. 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 applicant. The charge sheet has been submitted on the basis of material collected by the investigating officer. 6. 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. 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, 1992 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192. 7. 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. 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. 8. 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. In the result, the prayer for quashing charge sheet is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus the same is accordingly dismissed. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage. 9. However, the applicant is directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from today, the 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. 9. However, the applicant is directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from today, the 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. In case the applicant fails to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against him.