Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 250 (UTT)

PRASHANT PANDA v. VEDPAL SINGH

2017-04-20

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 28.03.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 125 of 2016, Vedpal vs. Prashant Panda, under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar. 2. The sole respondent field a criminal complaint case against the accused-applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The trial court recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statements of Pradeep and Mukesh were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The documents were filed by the complainant. After considering the material on record, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar summoned the accused-applicant to face the trial for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. Against the summoning order, applicant filed a Revision, which too was dismissed. Hence the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. According to the complainant, accused took a sum of Rs. 20,80,000/- from the complainant by Cheque No. 00793879 on 23.10.2017. The money involved in the cheque has been paid to the accused. The accused-applicant furnished a receipt in his own handwriting in this behalf. There was an agreement that the criminal case pending against the applicant shall be settled after obtaining a sum of Rs. 20,80,000/-. Neither the accused returned the aforesaid amount, nor settled the criminal case pending against the applicant in the court of law. 4. It may be argued that it is a dispute of civil nature. But the contrary argument would be, what is the predominant nature of the dispute? What was the motive of the accused? It can be inferred at this stage that the predominant nature of the proceedings is criminal in nature. Otherwise, what for Section 406 & Section 420 IPC are there in the statute book? 5. But the contrary argument would be, what is the predominant nature of the dispute? What was the motive of the accused? It can be inferred at this stage that the predominant nature of the proceedings is criminal in nature. Otherwise, what for Section 406 & Section 420 IPC are there in the statute book? 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986 : 2013 (1) NCC 1, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Some of those principles, which are relevant in the context of present case, can be summarized as below: i. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. ii. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. iii. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. iv. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. iv. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. v. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. vi. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused. vii. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender. viii. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. ix. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. It may be purely a civil wrong or purely a criminal offence or a civil wrong as also a criminal offence constituting both on the same set of facts. But if the records disclose commission of a criminal offence and the ingredients of the offence are satisfied, then such criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil wrong has also been committed. The power cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The factual foundation and ingredients of an offence being satisfied, the court will not either dismiss a complaint or quash such proceedings in exercise of its original jurisdiction. x. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a ‘civil wrong’ with no ‘element of criminality’ and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. xi. Even in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. xi. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction, the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. xii. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full- fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. xiii. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed with by the prosecution. xiv. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. xv. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge. xvi. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that interest of justice favours otherwise, it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. xvii. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration. 5. There appears to be no illegality in the cognizance and summoning order (order under challenge). The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. xvii. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration. 5. There appears to be no illegality in the cognizance and summoning order (order under challenge). No interference is called for in the same at this stage, as would also be evident from the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 . Para 28 of the said ruling is reproduced herein below for convenience: “The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defence raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” 6. It is settled law that the factual controversy need not be gone into by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and hence this Court need not deal with factual aspects of the case in detail. Whether such offences were, in fact, committed by the applicant, or not, has to be examined by the Trial Court. It is settled law that the factual controversy need not be gone into by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and hence this Court need not deal with factual aspects of the case in detail. Whether such offences were, in fact, committed by the applicant, or not, has to be examined by the Trial Court. Apparently, there is nothing on record to say that the applicant, prima facie, did not commit such offence. Foundation of criminal offence is, therefore, laid against the accused-applicant on a bare reading of the allegations levelled against him in criminal complaint case supported by the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 7. Criminal proceeding pending against him therefore, should not be quashed. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle or scuttle the legitimate prosecution. 8. It is also the settled law that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid in the Section itself. The applicant, in the instant case, is unable to pass those tests. 9. This Court, therefore, is of the view that no interference is called for in the proceedings of the Court below in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant is therefore, dismissed. 10. As prayed, liberty is granted to the applicant to take all the factual pleas before the Court below for securing his discharge/acquittal at an appropriate stage.