High Court

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant arising out of Case Crime no. 0496 of 2023, State Vs. Arif & others, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly arising out of impugned order dated 4.11.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bareilly.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier a first information report stood lodged on 17.7.2023 against the applicant and one another purported to be under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC relatable certain monetary transactions and thereafter since Tej Pal who is the main culprit, who is adamant in launching criminal proceedings was unsuccessful in detaining the applicant behind the bars so he through one of the staff again lodged a first information report on 6.8.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC being Case Crime No.0496 of 2023 and in the statement he has also deposed that the entire monetary transaction took place in front of him and he is a witness to the same. Further submission is that it is nothing but a malicious prosecution being sought to be initiated at all levels.

4. Learned AGA on the other submits that whatever might be but what is to be seen in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is as to whether there is any cognizable offence is made and this Court may not make a roving and fishing enquiry.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record I am of the opinion that since factual issues have been sought to be raised further in relation to the fact that the impugned first information report has been lodged by a person, who had earlier lodged a first information report cannot be gone into and further this Court cannot make any enquiry to the factual aspects in absence of pointing out any jurisdictional error coupled with the law laid down the case of in view of the fact that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct inquiry at pre-trial stage that too on factual issues as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 and the paragraph no. 23 culled out the following propositions of law which is enumerated hereinunder:- "i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

6. On a pointed query, being made to learned counsel for the applicant, as to whether there was any jurisdictional error committed by the court below, the learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any jurisdictional error committed by the court below.

7. Resultantly, in absence of any jurisdictional infirmity or illegality pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, no good ground is made to quash the charge sheet as well as the summoning order, as even otherwise, this Court finds that this is not a fit case wherein inherit jurisdiction power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973, be invoked.

8. In view of above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands consigned to record.

9. At this stage Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall move discharge application to which learned AGA submits that in case a discharge application is being preferred with the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.

10. In the opinion of the Court, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case the discharge application is being preferred then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with law as per the law of the land taking into account the facts and law on the subject. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 piyush

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant arising out of Case Crime no. 0496 of 2023, State Vs. Arif & others, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly arising out of impugned order dated 4.11.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bareilly.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier a first information report stood lodged on 17.7.2023 against the applicant and one another purported to be under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC relatable certain monetary transactions and thereafter since Tej Pal who is the main culprit, who is adamant in launching criminal proceedings was unsuccessful in detaining the applicant behind the bars so he through one of the staff again lodged a first information report on 6.8.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC being Case Crime No.0496 of 2023 and in the statement he has also deposed that the entire monetary transaction took place in front of him and he is a witness to the same. Further submission is that it is nothing but a malicious prosecution being sought to be initiated at all levels.

4. Learned AGA on the other submits that whatever might be but what is to be seen in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is as to whether there is any cognizable offence is made and this Court may not make a roving and fishing enquiry.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record I am of the opinion that since factual issues have been sought to be raised further in relation to the fact that the impugned first information report has been lodged by a person, who had earlier lodged a first information report cannot be gone into and further this Court cannot make any enquiry to the factual aspects in absence of pointing out any jurisdictional error coupled with the law laid down the case of in view of the fact that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct inquiry at pre-trial stage that too on factual issues as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 and the paragraph no. 23 culled out the following propositions of law which is enumerated hereinunder:- "i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

6. On a pointed query, being made to learned counsel for the applicant, as to whether there was any jurisdictional error committed by the court below, the learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any jurisdictional error committed by the court below.

7. Resultantly, in absence of any jurisdictional infirmity or illegality pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, no good ground is made to quash the charge sheet as well as the summoning order, as even otherwise, this Court finds that this is not a fit case wherein inherit jurisdiction power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973, be invoked.

8. In view of above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands consigned to record.

9. At this stage Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall move discharge application to which learned AGA submits that in case a discharge application is being preferred with the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.

10. In the opinion of the Court, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case the discharge application is being preferred then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with law as per the law of the land taking into account the facts and law on the subject. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 piyush