Pramod Kumar v. Kayam Singh and others, under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:151458 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29116 of 2024 Applicant :- Kayam Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Pandey, Radhey Krishna 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 Atrocities 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 Article 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 17.05.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the process of the court. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 17.9.2024 DS
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. D.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 17.05.2024 and further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 52090 of 2023, Pramod Kumar v. Kayam Singh and others, under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Khairgarh, District Firozabad, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ A.C.J.M., Firozabad. Brief facts of the present case are that the present complaint has been filed by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants on 21.08.2023 with the allegation that on 16.07.2023 at about 04:30 P.M. when the opposite party no. 2 was in his fields, all accused persons who were present there with the common intention having lathi, danda in their hands, abused the opposite party no. 2. When the opposite party no. 2 objected to the aforesaid, Neelam and Pankaj (applicant nos. 3 & 4 respectively) caught hold of opposite party no. 2 and Kayam Singh (applicant no. 1) and Karamveer Singh (applicant no. 2) put gamchha around the neck with the intention to kill him. Hearing the screaming of opposite party no. 2, Sone Lal, Rakesh and others rushed there to save. In the incident, the opposite party no. 2 having Rs. 2200/- kept in his pocket as well as documents were taken away by the applicants. The aforesaid application was treated as a complaint case and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded, after which the applicants have been summoned, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 are real brothers, a civil dispute is pending between the two as is detailed in the statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 18.10.2023. He further submits that the present case has been lodged to give criminal colour to the civil litigation. Emphasizing that the present case has been lodged to the counterblast as for the incident dated 16.07.2023, a first information report was lodged by Kayam Singh (applicant no. 1) against opposite party no. 2 against Pramod Kumar and Harveer Singh. He further submits that the medical as placed by opposite party no. 2 is concocted and manufactured one, for which an application has been given by the applicants to police authority to get the same verified. In the said incident on 16.07.2023, the applicant no. 1 has sustained injuries. The medical of Kayam Singh is placed on record as Annexure-4 to the petition. He next submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of the process of Court. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that for the same incident on 16.07.2023 an FIR has been lodged from the side of the applicants hence the incident is admitted. 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. 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 counsel. 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:-