Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 575 (ALL)

Puttilal v. State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

2017-02-17

AJAI LAMBA, VIJAY LAXMI

body2017
JUDGMENT 1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report, lodged as Case Crime No. 505 of 2016 under Sections 147, 323, 326, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Jagatpur, district Raebareli (Annexure-1). 2. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that injuries have been caused and received in the incident. In such circumstances, the incident itself cannot be disputed. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was a dispute in regard to payment of wages. Non Cognizable Report has been registered at the instance of the petitioners against the other side vide Annexure-2. 4. We have considered the contention of learned counsel. 5. Prima facie, the injuries on account of which Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C. have been invoked would not be self inflicted. It is for the investigating agency to consider as to who is the aggressor. 6. Evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter affidavits to record a finding that the petitioners are innocent or that ingredients of the alleged offence are not satisfied. 7. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in context of the material/pleadings relied on by the petitioner, in context of judgment rendered by Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in Rajiv Thappar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 . In Rajiv Thappar?s case (supra), the following (relevant portion) has been held: - ?29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution?s/complainant?s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution?s/complainant?s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: 30.1. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. 30.3. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? (Emphasised by us) 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.? 8. We are of the considered opinion that the material/pleadings on which learned counsel for the petitioners has relied, is not such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the chargesllegations levelled against the accused; and the material produced is not of sterling and impeccable quality as would persuade reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusation as false. 9. Under the circumstances, no ground for quashing of the First Information Report is made out. 10. The petition is dismissed.