Smt. Sheela v. Gendalal & Other), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121182 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22896 of 2024 Applicant :- Genda Lal @ Tinku @ Gaidan Lal Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shyam Shanker Pandey,Subodh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
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............." 11. 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. 12. 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 complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. 13. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Kalp Nath Singh
Arguments
1. Heard Mr. Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 08.05.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad against the applicants in Complaint Case No.5303 of 2024 (Smt. Sheela vs. Gendalal & Other), under Sections 452, 354 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mundhapandey, District- Moradabad, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved on 03.02.2024 by opposite party no.2 against the applicants with the allegation that on 27.11.2023 at about 10:00 p.m., both the accused persons entered her house in an intoxicated condition. The accused persons took out a countrymade pistol and put it on the mouth of the opposite party no.2 and both the accused persons committed rape upon the opposite party no.2. While leaving the house, they threatened the victim for dire consequences in case she shared the incident with anyone. The delay has been explained in the aforesaid application. The aforesaid application was treated as complaint case and statements under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. have been recorded after which the applicants have been summoned. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. As one Mamta, the wife of applicant no.1 had earlier lodged an FIR on 02.12.2023 at 11:10 hours against three persons namely Nasim, Guddu and Mohd. Umar for incident dated 27.11.2023, therefore, as a counter-bast, the present case has been lodged by wife of person working in the shop of the aforesaid persons. He further submits that the present case is nothing but a counter-blast to the case lodged by wife of applicant no.1. He further submits that the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He further contends that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of process of Court. 5. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the submissions as made by learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that there are specific allegations against the applicants in the complaint as well as statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further submit that there is nothing on record to show that the husband of opposite party no.2 was working in the shop of the accused persons against whom the wife of application no.1 has lodged the FIR. He further submits that all the 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. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 7. 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 counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. 8. 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. 9. 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." 10. 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:-