High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121180 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22825 of 2024 Applicant :- Akhlak And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhan Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Dhan Pal, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the summoning/cognizance order dated 08.01.2024 as well as proceeding of Complaint Case No.701 of 2023 (Nazia @ Hina vs. Akhlak and others, under Sections 342, 354, 354-B I.P.C., Police Station- Kadar Chauk, District- Budaun, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Budaun. As per allegations in the complaint lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants for the incident dated 13.11.2022. The opposite party no.2 had gone to the house of applicant no.1 for taking money as due against the applicant no.1. The applicant no.1 did not give money and he was present in his house along with one Jahangir Beg @ Mirza Jahangir Beg where he misbehaved with opposite party no.2 and tore her clothes. She ran away from there and after returning home disclosed the entire incident to her husband. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case for the purpose of harassment. The complaint has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to money dispute between the parties. He further submits that there are contradictions in the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the Magistrate has summoned the applicants in a mechanical manner, without application of judicial mind. The present case is nothing but a false case, lodged in order to maliciously prosecute the applicants. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala-fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He further submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made
Legal Reasoning
submits that from the prima facie reasoning of the complaint as well as statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. offences are made out against the applicants. He further submits that all the other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 counsels. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. 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. 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." 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:- "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............." 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. 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 summoning order and the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 08.01.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Rahul.
Arguments
by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that there is specific allegations against the applicants in the complaint as well as statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further