Jagdhari Yadav v. Shriram Yadav and another) u
Case Details
Court No. - 43 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16320 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 and paragraph no. 23 culled 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; iii) 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." Sri Tripathi has further invited the attention of the Court towards page no. 44 of the application so as to further contend that on the previous occasion also non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants and this Court had come in rescue of the applicants while passing the order dated 26.07.2011 in application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23039 of 2011. I have considered the submission of the rival parties and perused the record. I find myself unable to quash the present proceedings in the light of the fact that non bailable warrants have already been issued against the applicants. More or less this Court also finds that the factual argument so sought to be raised by the counsel for the applicants, cannot be gone into at this stage. However, it is always open for the applicants to prefer an appropriate bail application seeking bail and in case the said application is being filed the same will be considered strictly in accordance with law existing on land with most expedition looking into the facts pertaining to the offences and their magnitude. With the aforesaid observations, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is consigned to record. Order Date :- 28.6.2022 Nisha Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.06.30 18:33:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Applicant :- Shriram Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jyoti Bhushan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Heard Sri Jyoti Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. This is an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been instituted by the applicants who are two in number for quashing the order dated 30.04.2022 passed by Fast Track Court (S.D.) Azamgarh (by which non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant no. 1 and bailable warrant /Rs. 10,000/- has been issued against the applicant no. 2) in Complaint Case No. 279 of 2017 (Jagdhari Yadav Vs. Shriram Yadav and another) u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Sidhari, District Azamgarh pending in the court of Fast Track Court (S.D.) Azamgarh. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the sole complainant being Jagdhari Yadav who has lodged a complaint againt the applicants who are the real sons of the complaint u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC has expired on 12.10.2018 and the issue was with regard to the taking away of the motorcycle which belongs to the deceased and the same was also put to custody and while furnishing forged papers, the vehicle was released and the custody of the vehicle was taken by the applicants. He further argued that though the sole complainant has himself died and he is not more however, the step mother is to taking all criminal recourse against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has also argued that he has also preferred a revision which has been admitted and pending however, non- bailable warrant has been issued with respect to the applicant no. 1 and bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant no. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants has thus sought to argue that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case as they have not committed the said offence. Sri A.P. Tripathi, learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the application while arguing that whatever might be the stand of the applicants, the same centers around factual score which cannot be gone into the at the pre-trial stage in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of