High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35861 of 2024 Applicant :- Priyanshu @ Priyanshu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
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." 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the present case, so far as, it relates Sections 354 and 504 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act. As such instant application is rejected to that extent and being entertained only with regard to relevant sections of SC/ST Act. Therefore, matter requires consideration only for offence under Section 3(1) Da, 3(1) Dha and 3(2) va of SC/ST Act. 15. Opposite party no.1 is represented through learned A.G.A. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 16. List this matter on 5.2.2025. In the meantime, both the parties shall exchange their respective affidavits, if any. 17. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the case so far as it relates to Section 3(1) Da, 3(1) Dha and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act is concerned shall remain stayed and the remaining proceedings under Section 354 and 504 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act shall remain continued. Order Date :- 9.12.2024/vkg
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding as well as Charge sheet dated 20.1.2024 and summoning /cognizance order dated 26.7.2024 of S.S.T. No.1203 of 2024, in Case Crime No.06 of 2024, (State Vs. Priyanshu Singh & anr), under Sections- 354, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)Da, 3(1) Dha, 3(2) (va) of S.C./ S.T. (P.A.) Act & Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Bakewar, District- Fatehpur pending before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur. 3. Having considered the incomplete charge sheet, as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of copy of charge sheet filed along with the supplementary affidavit, this court, vide order dated 28.11.2024, has called for report from the court concerned and directed to learned AGA to complete his instructions in this regard. 4. In compliance of order dated 28.11.2024 passed by this court, learned AGA has filed copy of instruction today in court which is taken on record. Photo stat copy of the said instruction is served upon learned counsel for the applicant. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Fatehpur has also submitted his report dated 14.12.2024 alongwith a copy of the charge sheet. Perusal of the charge sheet appended with the report submitted by the court concerned and the copy of the instructions filed by the learned AGA reveals that column nos.14, 15 and 16 are properly described as per rules. There is no discrepancy in the charge sheet no.16/2024, dated 20.1.2024, submitted by the Investigating Officer. In this view of the matter, I do not find any shortcoming in the copy of charge sheet which has been submitted by learned court concerned and learned AGA, therefore, there is no substance in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in this respect. 6. So far as the second submission advanced on behalf of applicant with regard to the applicability of the SC/ST Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case is concerned, I found substance to the extent that there is no utterance about caste-related abusive language to the victim or her family members. FIR and statement of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, is silent in this respect. There is nothing in the charge sheet or the FIR that she has been subjected to a crime on account of being member of the Scheduled Caste community. In her statement under Section 161, the first informant has made a simple allegation that caste-related abusive language has been used, however, there is no reference or utterance in this regard as to what caste related abusive language has been hurled upon her and her husband. It is next submitted no independent witness has been adduced except the Principal of Krishak Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Jarara, Fatehpur and Dr. Amarjeet Singh Kushawaha, the remaining witnesses are police personnel and the parents of the victim including the victim herself. In respect of his submission learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 668; Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttrakhand & Another reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 907 and Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2249. 7. So far as remaining offence under Sections 354, 504 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act is concerned, I am skeptical of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. Having considered the record on board coupled with the FIR and the statement of witnesses, prima facie, the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of crime cannot be ruled out. The innocence of the present applicant as is being tried to put forward by learned counsel for the applicant is a matter of scrutiny which can be adjudicated upon more appropriately by the trial court after appraising the evidence on record. At this juncture, in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial to infer the innocence of the present applicant. Record reveals that learned counsel for the applicant has raised disputed question of fact qua involvement of present applicant in the incident in question. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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." 10. 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." 11. 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 :-