High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114246 1 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7269 of 2024 Applicant :- Haibat Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deep Chand Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deep Chand Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State. 2. This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash summoning order dated 10.07.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 03.05.2023 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Special Trial No.244 of 2023 (State vs. Shashikant Yadav & others), arising out of Case Crime No.0169 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghauchghat, District-Deoria, pending before the Special Judge (SC/ ST Act), Deoria.
Facts
3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 01.10.2022 at about 20:51 hrs against two named accused persons including the applicant, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act with the allegation that on 13.09.2022 at about 06:00 p.m., when the informant was returning to his house, two named accused having lathi, danda and knife were sitting in a planned manner to assault the informant. The applicant alongwith co-accused started using derogatory caste indicative words and with intention to kill, they grabbed his collar and assaulted him with hand and fists. The informant managed to save himself when the passerby intervened. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & 2 Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act. Pursuant to which the cognizance has been taken on 03.05.2023 and applicant has been summoned vide order dated 10.07.2023. Hence the present application has been filed.
Legal Reasoning
"15 The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions : (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; 5 (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 14. The power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been amiably elaborated in following two cases, which are considered to be authorities on the subject of quashing of criminal proceedings. Despite all the contradicting judgments of the Apex Court the following cases provides most accepted views:- i). In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 AIR 604, the Apex Court in paragraph 102 has enumerated 7 categories of the cases where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court, which are quoted below:- 6 "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. (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." ii). In the case of R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab reported in 1960 AIR 862, the Apex Court discussing the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. observed in paragraph 6 as follows:- 7 "6. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal it is necessary to consider the nature and scope of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code. The said section saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. There is no doubt that this inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code. In the present case the magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under Section 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the .proceedings is not at the present stage covered by any specific provision of the Code. It is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the a11egations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no ques- tion of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in 8 support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magis- trate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and' contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. xxxxxxxx" (Emphasis supplied) 15. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed 3 clauses of cases in which criminal proceeding can be quashed, which are as follows:- "(a) where there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of criminal proceedings; (b) where the allegation in FIR do not discloses or constitute an offence, even if taken at face value and not their entirely. (c) where the allegation made constitute an offence but there is no evidence which can prove them." 16. As such, the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has very wide scope and is an essential part of the functioning in order to meet the end of justice, it must be noted that the power so assigned is so vast and can easily be misinterpreted. So, it becomes important for the Courts to use it wisely and according to the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. 17. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has made its space in Cr.P.C. in order to not only enable the High Court to provide proper justice but also to curb the filing of fictitious complaints. 18. Further, even the framers of legislation while enacting section 482 Cr.P.C. had started with a non-obsante clause and completed the section with "or otherwise to secure the ends of justice" which lays 9 obligation upon the power of High Court to prevent the Society from Criminals and law-breakers and should be exercised to stop the public from filing fictitious complaints just to fulfill their personal grudges. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal case (supra), after considering several judgments, distilled the principles governing the exercise of extra ordinary power of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or it inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Several categories of cases by way of illustrations were also listed out, the same has been earlier discussed for ready reference. But, at the same time, the Apex Court also recorded a note of caution. 20. From the entire discussion, what is subtly clear is that FIR and charge sheet can be quashed if allegation or evidence do not establish the commission of an offence. Upon analysis, the Court noted that the facts of each case would determine the exercise of the discretion vested in the Court to quash criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of Court. 21. From perusal of the records, the Court finds that the present case is lodged to wreck vengeance as a counterblast to the compliant lodged by the applicant including the villagers against the wife of the informant, who is Pradhan of the village for embezzlement of village development funds. The counsel for the opposite party no.2 has admitted that earlier enmity between the parties and stated that present case has been lodged to save the skin of his wife from the inquiry, which has been conducted on the complaint moved by the applicant and other villagers, therefore, no offence under the relevant sections is made out. 22. This Court while invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can always interfere in considering the present facts of the case where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an 10 ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 23. Therefore, in view of above discussion, this Court finds a good ground for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 24. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 10.07.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 03.05.2023 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Special Trial No.244 of 2023 (State vs. Shashikant Yadav & others), arising out of Case Crime No.0169 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghauchghat, District-Deoria, pending before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria are hereby quashed. 25. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly,
Arguments
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that wife of the informant is functioning as Pradhan in the concerned village and as there was embezzlement of development funds, a complaint was lodged by the villagers including the applicant before the District Magistrate, Deoria on 26.09.2022. He has been informed that on the aforesaid application, an inquiry has been conducted in accordance with the relevant Provisions of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Coming to know about the aforesaid, a false and frivolous case has been lodged in order to exert pressure upon the applicant to withdraw his complaint. He further submits that there is no evidence to support the version of FIR as no injury report has been placed on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the present case is squarely covered under fifth and seventh guideline framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal case, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it has been held that criminal case can be quashed to protect the accused from malicious prosecution. When a criminal proceeding is instituted with mala-fide intention to harass the person, the court can quash the entire proceedings to secure the ends of justice. 6. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, has prayed that the C.B.I. Inquiry be conducted in the present matter as well as several other matters in which the opposite party no.2 has lodged false and frivolous complaint on the basis of concocted story and has manipulated the medical report also. 3 7. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submitted that the present criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant is not only malicious but also amount to an abuse of the process of the court of law. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case are liable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not want to file counter affidavit and states that the case may be decided on merits. He has not been able to show any injury report and admits that there was previous enmity between the parties. 9. Per contra, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant by contending that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned summoning order dated 10.07.2023 by which the applicant has been summoned by the learned Magistrate. The applicant can agitate his grievance at appropriate stage before the concerned court below. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be quashed at this stage. 10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the present application. 11. The scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a very agitated and debatable issue. Nevertheless, there are some cases which have got vide acceptance in the legal fraternity and hence, are used as the minor guidelines/principles governing the cases of quashing criminal proceedings. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293 has held that, in order to determine the veracity of prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings raised by an accused u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the following questions are to be raised before the High Court, if the answer to all the following questions was in affirmative, then the High Court should quash the proceedings by exercising its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 4 "1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable, i.e. material is of sterling and in impeccable quality? 2. Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject and over rule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e. material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusation as false? 3. Whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or that the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 4. Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an absuse, of process of the Court and hence, would not serve the end of Justice?" 13. The Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Ahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, referring to various caases has summarized following principles to govern powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:-
Decision
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Jitendra/-