Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1318 (ALL)

Lata Devi v. State Of U. P.

2021-11-09

VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 12.6.2020 in Case No.591 of 2020 (State Vs. Lata Devi and another) arising out of Case Crime No.55 of 2020 under Sections 306, 109, 511 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Aligarh as well as cognizance order dated 20.7.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Aligarh. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the first information report against the applicants has been lodged under Section 306, 109, 511 I.P.C. on account of the fact that the applicant no.2 had earlier lodged a first information report dated 7th May, 2020 against one Ajeet and Vijay Kumar. However, no action was been taken and as such on 6th June, 2020 the applicants went to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh where it is alleged that the applicant no.2 has abetted the applicant no.1 to commit suicide and on the basis thereof, the applicant no.2 took kerosene oil and was attempting to commit suicide when the Constable Vineeta intervened and by force avoided the unhappy situation and on inquiry, it is revealed that the aforesaid two persons are the applicants, who have been forcing the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh to complete the investigation in the earlier first information report. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant had gone to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police for redressal of grievance and the offence as alleged in the first information report has never happened and the false FIR has been lodged against the applicants. 5. After investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the police authorities against the applicants. 6. It is observed that in respect of quashing of the criminal proceedings, the allegation in the first information report are to be given primacy and the material collected during investigation is to be seen at the realm of trial. 7. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had summarised some of the categories of cases where the inherent power under section 482 of the Code could be exercised by the High Court to quash criminal proceedings against the accused. 7. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had summarised some of the categories of cases where the inherent power under section 482 of the Code could be exercised by the High Court to quash criminal proceedings against the accused. These are:- "(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge." 8. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 wherein the Hon'ble apex court has held as follows :- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) 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." 9. In State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 142 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 23 the apex court has held that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 10. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 10. Whereas while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC the Court has to look at the object and purpose for which such power is conferred on it under the said provision. Exercise of inherent power is available to the Court to give effect to any order under CrPC, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This being the position, exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC should be consistent with the scope and ambit of the same in the light of the decisions aforementioned. In appropriate cases, to prevent judicial process from being an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants, exercise of inherent power is not only desirable but necessary also, so that the judicial forum of court may not be allowed to be utilized for any oblique motive. When a person approaches the Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the very issue of process, the Court on the facts and circumstances of a case has to exercise the powers with circumspection as stated above to really serve the purpose and object for which they are conferred. 11. The power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 12. While exercising power under section 482 the court does not function as court of appeal or revision. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 12. While exercising power under section 482 the court does not function as court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in section itself and the catena of decisions of Hon'ble apex court. 13. The powers possessed by the Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material, of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for this Court to analyze the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The first information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the court and at that stage, it is not possible for the court to sift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other. 14. There cannot be a general proposition of law, so as to fit in as a straitjacket formula for the exercise of such power. Each case will have to be judged on its own merit and the facts warranting exercise of such power. 15. In the present case, the first information report dated 06.06.2020 has been lodged against the applicants under section 306, 109 and 511 of the Indian penal code. The first information report states that the informant Constable Vinita was posted at the gate of the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, some persons were coming for seeking redressal of their grievances and at that point of time, it was seen that a woman along with a man after coming out from the gate of the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, the said man started shouting and encouraging the woman to pour kerosene oil and to put herself on fire as their grievances will not be redressed unless the same is done. The woman thereafter on the abetment of the aforesaid person opened the cap of the kerosene container and was attempting to pour kerosene oil on herself and on seeing the aforesaid the Constable Vinita and her colleagues immediately rushed towards the aforesaid place and took away the kerosene container and the aforesaid man and woman were caught by the informant and on further enquiry it is revealed that the aforesaid persons are the applicants and were attempting to commit suicide in order to pressurize the police authorities to take action in the earlier first information report. It is on this basis that the criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants. 16. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application, it has been stated that the present first information report dated 06.06.2020 has been lodged in order to pressurize the applicant to withdraw the earlier first information report lodged by the applicants. It is also stated that the local police party is in collusion with one Ajeet and Vijay against whom the applicants have lodged the first information report. It is also submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants went to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police for redressal of their grievance and the offence/occurrence as stated in the first information report dated 06.06.2020 has never occurred and the alleged occurrence as claimed in the first information report dated 06.06.2020 is false and concocted. 17. In the present case, it is to be seen that the very incident/occurrence has been denied by the counsel for the applicants and the factual matrix as claimed in the first information report dated 06.06.2020 is being disputed by the counsel for the applicants. It is further submitted that after investigation in pursuance to the above-mentioned first information report dated 06.06.2020, the police has filed the charge sheet against the applicants under sections 306, 109 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and in the aforesaid charge sheet, the informant and two other witnesses have been shown to be the eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. All the eyewitnesses in the chargesheet are police personnel’s claimed to be present at the place of occurrence when the alleged occurrence took place. 18. All the eyewitnesses in the chargesheet are police personnel’s claimed to be present at the place of occurrence when the alleged occurrence took place. 18. The perusal of the first information report dated 06.06.2020 would demonstrate that the offence has been committed by the applicants and after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants. The argument of the counsel for the applicants is that the facts as stated in the first information report are not correct and the events have never happened as has been claimed in the first information report are matter of fact, which can only be considered during the stage of trial and these factual disputes cannot be considered under the powers under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure. The factual matrix of the present case being denied by the applicants and as such the same cannot be examined at this stage by the court in the present proceedings. In the proceedings under section 482 of code of criminal procedure the disputed question of fact cannot be considered and the same has to be considered at the stage of trial. It is not the case of the applicants that the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the applicants. In fact, the case of the applicants is that the police authorities have colluded with some other persons to lodge the present first information report against the applicants to pressurize the applicants to withdraw the earlier first information report lodged by the applicants. The applicants have not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the present first information report and criminal proceedings arising thereof are the abuse of the process of law. It is further to be noted that the first information report has been lodged by a police personnel and even the eyewitnesses in the chargesheet against the applicants are the police personal and therefore the applicants had failed to demonstrate as to how the police personal are acting malafide against the applicants and without there being any material on record in respect of the same. Further the applicants have failed to demonstrate as to how the informant and the persons namely Vijay and Ajeet have colluded with the informant, who is a police personnel in order to pressurize the applicant to withdraw the first information report lodged earlier by the applicants. There is no material on record which could remotely suggest that the present criminal proceedings against the applicants are to pressurize the applicants to withdraw the earlier first information report. 19. Under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure it would not be proper for the Court to analyze the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such devices arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. The proceedings under the inherent powers of the court can be quashed where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complainant has to be read as a whole. If it appears that in consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is magnified, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the court. It is also to be noted that when the information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered then the mala fides of the third party would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during investigation on evidence led in court which decide the fate of the accused person. 20. At this stage, the applicants has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the charge sheet and the first information report do not constitute any offence and as such in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated hereinabove, the present application is devoid of merit and as such is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. 22. 21. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. 22. It however, goes without saying that the observation in the order will in no manner effect the bail application that may be filed by the applicants before the court concerned and the same be independently decided without being prejudiced by the observations made hereinabove.