Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4162 (ALL)

Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U. P.

2016-12-23

ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II

body2016
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Srivastava-II,J. Heard Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogendra Singh, learned AGA for the State. Initially, the first information report was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC wherein during the investigation Section 302 IPC was also amended whether charge-sheet was filed which was filed under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Ganster Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an application for discharge was moved by the accused. Learned trial court has framed the charges under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with section 149, Section 302 read with 149 IPC, 323 read with section 149, 504, 506 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the gang chart only two cases are shown as pending against the petitioners Anil Kumar. While only one case is shown as pending against the Durgesh Pandey, Dwarika Prasad Pandey and Krishan Kumar Pandey. Only three cases are shown as pending against the Vikas Pandey. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no offence under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster Act is made out against the accused charge-sheet is vitiated. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. No case law is placed to show that if only one or two cases are pending against the accused, Then, a charge-sheet against the accused under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster Act could not be filed against him. It is a matter to be looked into by the trial court during the trial. The petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking inherent powers of the Court for quashing the charge-sheet. Charge sheet have already been framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not produce any case law on the point as to whether on the basis of one case only charge-sheet under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Ganster Act could not be filed. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, including ours one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296 , Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474 , Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781 , M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682 , State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588, Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74 and Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another (2016) 9 SCC 1 . Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682 , State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588, Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74 and Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another (2016) 9 SCC 1 . "In Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others (Supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court has relied upon the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra) wherein it was held that though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae or to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein power under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the FIR should be exercised, there are circumstances where the court may be justified in exercising such jurisdiction. These are, where the FIR does not prima facie constitute any offence, does not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation by the police; where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; where there is an expressed legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code; and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Despite stating these grounds, the Court unambiguously uttered a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases; the Court also warned that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims or caprice." In Lee Kun Hee and others Vs. State of U.P. and others JT 2012 (2) SC 237, Hon'ble the Apex Court has further laid down, the guidelines for exercise of the power by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been held that Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate evidence, if any, available on record. Interference would be justified only when a clear case of such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled interference even at the preliminary stage by High Court may result in causing obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in public interest. It, however, may not be doubted, if on the face of it, either from the first information report or complaint, it is evident that allegation are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair-minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding, in such cases refusal to exercise jurisdiction may equally result in injustice, more particularly, in cases, where the complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order which requires an interference by this Court in petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.