High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189877 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32667 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Prajapati And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
Facts
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding as well as Charge sheet dated 15.7.2019 and Cognizance / summoning order dated 05.03.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi in Special Case No. 378 of 2021, (State Vs. Rahul Prajapati and others), under Sections- 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3(1)Da and 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act arising out of Case Crime No. 456 of 2019, Police Station - Bhelupur, District- Varanasi, pending before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi. 3. As per the FIR version, on the date of occurrence of the offence i.e. 10.6.2019, at about 8 P.M. Akash (respondent no.2) alongwith his friend Rahul (son of Satish) while went to drink water at a shop situated behind Tulsipur Nivedita School, they were ambushed by the accused persons (applicants herein) with sticks (lathis and Danda) and were injured in the process. Further, the accused persons were abusing and threatening to kill while they fled away. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a false and malicious prosecution has been instituted against the present applicants, whereas no such incident took place between the parties on the date of alleged occurrence of offence. It is next submitted that the cognizance/summoning order dated 5.3.2021 has illegally been issued without applying proper judicial mind and without comprehensive discussion of the case. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has cited the following cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :i) Suresh Garodia Vs. The State Of Assam And Another [2024 0 AIR (SC) ] (ii) Shajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249] and also cited the case of this court in Harikishor @ Harikishor Pandey @ Lalla Pandey And 3 Others VS. State of U.P, and Another, Application under Section 482 No.10138 of 2023, dated 27.3.2023.
Legal Reasoning
"102. 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 channelised 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 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 bur engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code on 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 10 private and personal grudge." 18. It has been further elucidated recently by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 964 where jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC has been analysed at great length. 19. Further, in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, Full Bench of the Apex Court while considering the powers of quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India has illustrated the circumstances under which quashing of a criminal case can be done and/or interim order can be granted. 20. Therefore, the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. In absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 21. Having considered the rival submissions advance by learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and the material available on record, in the light of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, no ground is made out to consider the merits of the instant case. As such, prayer of quashing, as made in instant application, is hereby refused. 22. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 4.12.2024/vkg
Arguments
5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and perusal of record coupled with the charge sheet and the injury report, prima facie, complicity of the present applicant in the commission of crime cannot be ruled out. In the light of the injury report and the statement of witnesses, occurrence of offence as averred in the FIR cannot be denied, as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant. As per the injury report (annexure no.5) Rahul son of Satish (friend of the first informant) has sustained four injuries i.e. lacerated wounds and red contusion, however, first informant has sustained 9 injuries i.e. lacerated wounds with abrasion and contusions. Injuries inflicted on the body of the first informant and his fried may be are simple in nature, however, same cannot be denied for the purposes of prosecution under the relevant sections of IPC. 7. The case of Harikishor @ Harikishor Pandey @ Lalla Pandey (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is not fully applicable in the instant matter. Aforesaid cited case is arising out of complaint wherein summoning order has been passed in a cavalier manner, therefore, having been dissatisfied with the order impugned coordinate bench of this court has quashed the summoning order and issued a direction to pass a fresh order. 8. The case of Suresh Garodia (supra) decided by Hon'ble Supreme court is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the aforesaid matter prosecutrix has lodged the FIR after lapse of 34 years. Hon'ble Supreme court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has found that the case is covered under category 5 and 7 as enunciated in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The case of Shajan Skaria (supra) is also distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Moreover, I am skeptical of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that cognizance/summoning order is non-est in the eye of law in as much as it has been passed in a set format without applying mind and discussing prima faice case of the first informant as mentioned in the FIR. Taking the cognizance of offence and issuing summons by learned Magistrate/court concerned under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. based on police report undoubtedly stands on a different pedestal than that of summoning order passed by the leaned Magistrate in a private complaint. Learned court concerned while taking the cognizance of offence based on police report is not expected to consider and discuss the case of the parties in detail showing prima facie conviction of the accused. Observation made by learned court would be suffice that he had gone through the chart sheet and other material on record. Much discussion about the material collected by the Investigating Officer and discussion of fact in the light of the material is not required. In the matter of Om Prakash and another Vs. State of UP and another, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3041 of 2022 reported in 2022 8 ILR ALLD 222, after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 and Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1140, expounded that in the matter arising out of police case issuing an order of cognizance on the printed proforma does not warrant any indulgence of this Court. It is further observed by the co-ordinate Bench that such cognizance order cannot be treated to be illegal. The relevant paragraph Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the order passed in the case of Om Prakash and another (supra) is quoted hereinbelow: "13. The next argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that cognizance order was passed by the court below on printed proforma in cryptic manner, which reflects non-application of judicial mind. 14. The present case is a State case, in which, after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and court below took cognizance on the basis of police report. 15. The Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 observed as:- "23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge- sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge- sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the Accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the Accused is based upon satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the Accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file." 16. Recently, three judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. The State of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1140 after considering the matter in detail observed in paragraph no. 75 as:- "75. The Special Judge, it must be noted, took cognizance on the basis of a report submitted under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure and not on the basis of a private complaint. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (supra). The Special Judge took note of the FIR, the witness statements, and connected documents before taking cognizance of the offence. In this backdrop, it would be far-fetched to fault the order of the Special Judge on the ground that it does not adduce detailed reasons for taking cognizance or that it does not indicate that an application of mind. In the facts of this case, therefore, the order taking cognizance is not erroneous." 17. Further, the Apex Court in para 85 (viii) summarised as:- "85 (viii) Since cognizance was taken by the Special Judge based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind to the material;" 10. After careful consideration of the case as set forth in the FIR and the material available on record coupled with the statement of the victim and the injured, and the injury report, prima faice, occurrence of cognizable offence cannot be ruled out. The innocence of the applicants, as is being tried to put forward by learned counsel for the applicants, is a matter of examination which can be adjudicated upon by the trial court more appropriately after appraising the evidence on record. At this juncture, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial to examine the innocence of the present applicant. I neither found any abuse of the process of law to the proceeding which has been challenged before this Court nor any justifiable ground to pass any order for the purposes of securing the ends of justice, therefore, there is no justification to exercise inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In my considered opinion, none of the guidelines as expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 are attracted in the given circumstances of the present case. In case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of UP and others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 947), Hon'ble Supreme Court has elucidated that in frivolous and vexatious proceedings, Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averment, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not to restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation (emphasis supplied). However, in the instant matter, no such case is made out. Record reveals that learned counsel for the applicants has raised disputed question of fact qua involvement of present applicants in the incident in question. 12. In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to analyze the factual evidence which is to be placed before the trial court. The power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very specific and wide to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. No provision of this Code is deemed to limit or effect such inherent power of the High Court. 13. It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686 3; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. : (2001) 8 SCC 645; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC 706 that exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge- sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception. 14. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in Paragraph 61 which is quoted herein below :- "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR or a complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline en-grafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court." 15. In Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018, Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and others, 2019 (6) SCC 107, the Apex Court has held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidences of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because where there are contradictions or the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidences and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial, when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. The same view has also been reiterated in judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10762 of 2018, Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another. 16. In the case of Priti Saraf & anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. Criminal Appeal No(s). 296 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6364 of 2019] (judgment dated March 10, 2021) : 2021 SCC Online SC 206 the Apex Court while considering the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as follows :- "23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirely shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/ FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record." 17. The scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC has been examined in detail by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335). The relevant para is mentioned hereunder :-