High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126514 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8792 of 2024 Applicant :- Kamal Nasir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Compliance affidavit, regarding service of notice upon opposite party no.2, has been filed by the State in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. 3. The present application has been filed by the applicant assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Azamgarh as well as entire criminal proceeding of S.S.T. No. 39 of 2022 (State Vs. Kamal Nasir and
Facts
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2019, under section 147, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Saraimeer, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh. 4. As per the allegations in the FIR lodged on 08.12.2019 on 11:40 hours against four named accused including applicant and two unknown persons with the allegation that when the applicant after getting the boundary work done, was sitting in the room inside the boundary with his laborers and uncle on 01.12.2019 at about 1:00 o'clock the accused came on a motorcycle in front of the gate of the plot in question and the accused Naiya @ Shahalam and all the accused persons, armed with illegal weapons started using abusive language and started firing with intention to kill, due to which Kanhaiya Lal, Arshad, Ashok, Ramkumar, Kalka, were sustained injuries. The applicant went inside the room alongwith his uncle and saved himself. After Investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant as well as other accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that no offence under relevant section is made out as despite of indiscriminate firing, the injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant had any motive or intention to kill the opposite party and any family member or labourers. 6. From the perusal of the injury report all the injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. He further submits that the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as recorded of the opposite party no. 2 Abid the dispute between opposite party no. 2 and co-accused Niyas is admitted. As some case was regarding land dispute in between the two and the aforesaid case opposite party no. 2 had won, the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations to settle the litigation between them and the orders in favour of opposite party no. 2 were there. 7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the injuries as sustained by five injured persons go to show that some incident took place. The submission of opposite party no. 2 regarding pendency of case as well as the fact that order was passed in favour of opposite party no. 2 also goes to prove that the incident took place as accused persons were annoyed by the order in favour of opposite party no. 2, therefore, they had come to take revenge. He next submits that other submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, at this stage, relates to the factual disputes and appraisal of evidence which cannot be seen here.
Legal Reasoning
"39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence..........…" 13. In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of aforesaid case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. 15. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Arti
Arguments
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 9. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details, which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. 10. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court can not look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. 11. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 12. The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-