Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 191 (ALL)

Shailendra Singh v. State of U. P.

2024-01-18

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following prayer: “To allow this petition by setting aside the cognizance order dated 06/09/2014, the charge-sheet dated 25/05/2014 and order dated 23/06/2018 whereby Charges have been framed by Special A.C.J.M. Custom Lko, arising out of Case Crime No. 13/2014 under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Banthra District Lucknow pending now before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Custom Lucknow namely Case No. 523 of 2014, State vs. Shailendra Singh and in the interest of Justice.” 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that from the material collected during investigation no case is made out against the applicants as the allegations made are absolutely vague. He further submitted that though the charges have been framed on 23.06.2018, the applicants are also released on bail in the impugned proceedings. In support of his case, for delayed filing of the present application after almost about more than nine year, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 AIR SCW 784 and has relied upon paragraph 22 and 23 of the judgment in which Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceeding even at the stage of issuance process or at the stage of committal or even at the stage of framing of charges, therefore merely filing an application after the delay of more than nine years will not prevent the Court from exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Paragraph 22 and 23 of the judgment are quoted hereunder: “22. 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. 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. 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 leveled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations leveled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations leveled 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. 23. 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.” It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in other proceeding under Domestic Violence Act the stand of opposite party no. 2 is contrary to stand taken in the impugned proceeding. 4. 2 is contrary to stand taken in the impugned proceeding. 4. Per contra learned AGA contended that there is a delay of more than nine years and charges have already been framed against the applicant on 23.06.2018 and there is no explanation for approaching this Court after the delay of more than nine years. Learned AGA also submitted that, when exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the court cannot conduct a mini trial and only the material collected by the Investigating agency during investigation is to be considered and defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is clear that FIR was lodged against the applicants in the year 2014 and the Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the year 2014 itself and from the perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima-facie case is made out against the applicant as there is specific allegations of harassment and demand of dowry against the applicants and the charges have also been framed against the applicants in the year 2018 itself and after obtaining bail they have been participating in trial and now after almost more than nine years they decided to challenge the proceeding without any plausible reason for approaching this Court after such a long delay. 6. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, in that case the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding but in those cases where the material relied upon the accused would rule out the charges leveled against the accused persons and the proceeding of trial will result in abuse of process of Court and would not served the end of justice. Further, from the material on record, prima facie, case is made out against the applicants, therefore aforesaid judgment does not apply in the present case, nor the argument of the counsel of the applicant or the material available on record persuade this court to quash the proceedings of the case in question in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after delay of more than nine years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC Online SC 1732 has observed that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is not expected to conduct a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities. 7. Similarly in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that High Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceeding without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task and further observed that the power under Section 482 should be exercised only 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. 8. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, it was further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while the Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power: (i) to secure the ends of justice. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. 9. Similarly in the case of C.B.I. vs. Aryan Singh, 2023 Live Law (SC) 292, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that High Court cannot conduct “mini trial” while executing powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. In view of legal position mentioned above this Court holds that application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceeding is not maintainable after considerably long period in absence of any explanation for delay, specifically when charges were framed against applicants in his presence long back, except in exceptional cases which may persuade the Court to interfere in the interest of justice. 11. In view of the above discussion, as well as on perusal of record it is clear that prima facie case is made out against the applicants and charges have been framed against the applicants in 2018 itself. 11. In view of the above discussion, as well as on perusal of record it is clear that prima facie case is made out against the applicants and charges have been framed against the applicants in 2018 itself. Therefore, after the delay of more than nine years, this Court does not find sufficient ground to interfere in the present case. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 is dismissed. 12. No order as to costs.