Smt. Lilawati v. Smt. Suman Sahu and others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168938 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29325 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Suman Sahu And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including orders dated 16.04.2024 and 02.05.2024, of Complaint Case No. 112 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint and statement of witness, a prima facie case is made out against applicant. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 7. In the instant matter, the complainant has made allegations that on 27.08.2019 at 07:30 A.M., the applicants-accused trespassed into her house and started damaging household articles and that when she and her son objected, they have abused and assaulted them and they forcibly took away jewellery and some documents from the house of complainant. The said version is supported by the complainant in her statement under Section - 200 Cr.P.C. and that version is further supported by the witness examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. In view of aforesaid facts and position of law, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. 8. So far the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is concerned, by that order application filed by the applicants for discharge has been rejected. It is well settled that at the stage of charge the court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence and it is not required to evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Court is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, the trial court will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. No doubt the Court may consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on but this however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. 9. Adverting to facts of the present case, as observed earlier, the complainant has alleged that on account of property dispute, on 27.08.2019 at about 07.30 AM, all the applicants / accused trespassed in to her house, damaged house hold articles and ransacked her house. It was further alleged that the applicants / accused forcibly took away jewellery and some documents. The complainant has supported said version in her statement under section - 200 Cr.P.C.. The version of complainant was further supported by the inquiry conducted under section - 202 Cr.P.C. The discharge application of the applicants has been rejected by a reasoned order. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. Further, charges have already been framed against the applicants vide order dated 02.05.2024 but the said order has not been brought on record and only the formal charges framed against applicants are being impugned. 10. In view of aforesaid facts and position of law, no case for interference in the impugned orders is made out. The application under section - 482 Cr.P.C. has no substance and thus, liable to be dismissed. 11. The application under section - 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.10.2024 S Rawat
Arguments
(Smt. Lilawati vs. Smt. Suman Sahu and others), under Sections - 395, 427, 504, 506, 447 I.P.C., Police Station- Sipri Bazar, District - Jhansi, pending in the Court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations. In fact there is dispute between the parties over the issue of property and a civil suit is pending between the parties regarding that property. In statement under Section - 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has not mentioned that the incident was witnessed by any person and thus, the statement of witness recorded under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon. It was further submitted that the allegations levelled against applicants are wholly false and there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. Learned counsel has referred contents of complaint and