High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197045 Reserved Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29675 of 2024 Applicant :- Satendra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kapil Tiwari,G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 10.07.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Budaun in Complaint Case No.804 of 2024, under Section 395 I.P.C., Police Station- Zarifnagar, District- Budaun, whereby applicants have been summoned for offence under Section 395 IPC, as well as for quashing of entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Legal Reasoning
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 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, the Hon'ble 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. The broad guidelines laid down by the Apex court for quashing a criminal complaint read as under: "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same 1 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 6 do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 7. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 522 the Apex Court elaborated on what evidence and material the High Court can get into in cases where a prayer for quashing a complaint has been made. The Court held: ''Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 8. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, the Court observed that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, the Apex Court indicated some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. 9. Thus, the legal position is well settled that 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 / complaint may be quashed. Similarly, where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable or where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the complaint / proceedings may be quashed. 10. Coming the facts of the present case, it may be seen that the case of complainant is that on 01.06.2024 at about 06.00 PM while he was coming from village Kolhar and reached near Shadipur village, applicants / accused Satendra, Manoj Kumar, Hukum Singh, Prem Singh and Tejpal forcibly stopped his motorcycle and at point of pistol, they have snatched Rs 5000/ from him, applicant Manoj and Prem Singh robbed his golden chain and applicant Tejpal robbed his golden ring. Applicant Hukum Singh fired a shot. The incident was witnessed by one Dharamvir and Yadram. It would be pertinent to mention that complainant has not disclosed in the complaint as how the said accused persons were known to him. The complainant has mentioned their complete description including fathers' name and address of said persons but it was not disclosed that how they were known to him. The learned trial Court also did not ask any question in this regard. The mystery was unfolded during hearing before this Court and it has emerged that the daughter of applicant / accused Hukum Singh is married with son of complainant. Other applicants / accused are related to Hukum Singh. It was shown that on 03.02.2023 the daughter of applicant / accused Hukum Singh has made a complaint to the police against the complainant and his family members regarding her harassment and that a case was registered on 11.11.2023 under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section ¾ D.P. Act against the complainant / opposite party No. 2 and his family members and thereafter, impugned complaint was lodged on 21.06.2024. Thus, the complainant has concealed the fact that alleged accused persons are his relatives and that the daughter of applicant / accused Hukum Singh has already lodged a complaint against him. This concealment on the part of complainant speaks a lot and clearly smack of malafide. Even otherwise it is not probable that applicant / accused Hukum Singh along with his family members / relations would commit robbery against the complainant, who is none but father-in- law of his daughter. It is apparent that impugned complaint has been lodged as counterblast to the case lodged by the daughter of applicant/ accused Hukum Singh. The allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable and it apparent that the impugned criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 11. Before parting with this order, this court is constrained to observe that examination of complainant under section 200 CrPC is not merely a formality but a crucial step. Section 200 CrPC provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing. Conjoint reading of Section 200 and 204 CrPC makes it clear that in order to form an opinion by the Magistrate after taking cognizance that there is sufficient ground for proceeding under Section 204 of the Code, the examination of complainant as laid down under Section 200 of the Code, plays a very important role. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, the apex court held: "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."(emphasis added). 12. Thus, the examination of the complainant is an important step in the process and it is not a mere formality to reduce in writing whatever is stated by the complainant. The word 'examination of complainant' denotes that wherever require the Magistrate must put questions to the complainant in order to ascertain veracity of his version. The examination of complainant on oath, is designed to ascertain the truth of the version of complaint. The Magistrate has to carefully evaluate the complainant's statement and the evidence produced to determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. 13. In view of aforesaid, the entire impugned proceedings, including complaint and summoning order, are hereby quashed. 14. Application under section 482 CrPC is allowed. Order Date :- 17.12.2024 SP/-
Arguments
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that daughter of applicant no.3 is married with son of opposite party no.2 and there was some dispute between them and in that connection the daughter of applicant no.3 has made an application to the police on 03.02.2023 and thereafter the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint on 21.06.2024. It was stated that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against applicant no.3 and his two nephews and two relatives, making allegations that on 01.06.2024 at about 06:00 P.M. while complainant was coming to his village and reached at Islamnagar Sahaswan Road, the applicants have stopped his motorcycle and forcibly snatched Rs.5,000/-, one golden chain and one ring from the complainant. It was stated that in the impugned complaint, the complainant has not disclosed the fact that applicants are his relatives. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned complaint is wholly malicious and thus liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that in view of statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima- facie case is made out against the applicants. However, it could not be disputed that the daughter of applicant no.3 is married with son of opposite party no.2/complainant. 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