High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28456 of 2021 Applicant :- Vinod Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Legal Reasoning
"15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." (emphasis added) Upon consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case, rival submission made by learned Counsel for the parties, keeping in view law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Rajesh Bajaj and Md. Allauddin Khan (supra); I do not find any good ground warranting interference in the matter. It is not a case of grave injustice. Accordingly, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 6.4.2022 I.A.Siddiqui Digitally signed by IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.04.18 12:43:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard learned Counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no.823 of 2020, State versus Vinod Mishra, (case crime no.165 of 2020), Police Station Barsethi, District Jaunpur and charge sheet dated 27.09.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 30.09.2020. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has committed no offence. Entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. No offence against the applicant is made out under the alleged sections. He further submits that according to injury report, injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. Nothing was found in X-Ray report. There is material contradiction in the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. There is cutting in the date of incident in the FIR. He further submits that cognizance order is not very well discussed and there is no reference of injury report in the cognizance order, it is passed without application of mind. Learned Counsel referring to the judgements in R.P. Kapur versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 submitted that if the allegation does not constitute the offence charge sheet should have been quashed. He further submits that act of Police OfÏcer / Investigating OfÏcer in submission of charge sheet is malicious and prosecution story is false and fake and not reliable to credence. He showed some papers and statements in favour of his contentions. Learned AGA for State opposed the application and submitted that applicant is named in the FIR and he committed crime by causing injuries to the victim. Injuries were fresh and sufÏcient to constitute offence under Section 308 IPC. He further submits that submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant related to the factual submissions which cannot be adjudged in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and question of making offence under a particular section is subject matter of evidence. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. A look at FIR, allegations made herein, statement of witnesses and injury report of victim would show that victim / opposite party no. 2 herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicant for the offence alleged. The question whether the victim will be able to prove the allegation in the manner known to law would arise only at a later stage. It cannot be said that prima-facie case is not made out against the applicant. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :