Surendra v. Amarnath and Others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:155045 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30066 of 2024 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pathak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Keshawa Prasad Pandey,Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Krishna Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Triloki Singh, 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 order dated 19.09.2018 as well as proceeding of Complaint Case No.2839 of 2017 (Surendra Vs. Amarnath and Others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Campierganj, District-Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Gorakhpur.
Facts
Brief facts of the case are, the complaint has been filed by opposite party no.2 on 29.07.2017, for the incident dated 16.01.2017 at about 7:20 hours against the applicant and few others with the allegations that when the complainant's son was returning to his house, the applicant along with other alleged accused persons surrounded him and with intention to kill assaulted him with lathi danda and hand and fists due to some earlier enmity. They also snatched chain of the value of Rs.40,000/-, a mobile of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.22,000/- cash and watch and threatened him for dire consequences. Few people gathered there and tried to intervene whereas someone called police by dialing 100 number. Both the parties were taken to the Police Station. Therefore, the complaint has been filed and the applicant has been summoned on 19.09.2018, hence, the present application.
Legal Reasoning
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 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 19.08.2018 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 :- 23.9.2024 Rahul.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. Earlier an FIR was lodged by the applicant against opposite party no.2 and his family members on 16.01.2017 for the incident dated 16.01.2017, in which Police after investigation has submitted final report. In the protest petition filed by the opposite party no.2 order dated 15.02.2018 has been passed directing for further investigation but till date the police authority have not done anything in compliance of the order dated 15.02.2018. He further submits that the present case has been filed in order to exert pressure upon the applicant to withdraw the case. He further submits that applicant could not approach this Court within time as he was arrested in the year 2022 and has been enlarged on bail in the year 2024. He further submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala-fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. Several other grounds have been taken on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon in the affidavit. He further 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 on the other hand submits that present case has been lodged for the incident dated 16.01.2017, therefore, it cannot be seen at this stage as to who is the aggressor. As regards reasons given for the delay in filing the present case as the summoning order is of the year 2018, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant has no legs to stand, as from the year 2018 to 2022 he had ample time to challenge the order. He further submits that all the other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From