High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. List revised.

2. Mr. R.K. Upadhyay, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants requests to pass over the case for today. When the Court asked him to argue the matter, he said that he does not have file, therefore, he is not in a position to argue the matter.

The aforesaid request of Mr. R.K. Upadhyay, Advocate, cannot be accepted as from the order sheet it is clear that on 14.11.2024 none was present to press this case.

4. The instant application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 31.05.2022 as well as proceeding of Case No.3002 of 2023 (State Vs. Anshul and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0504 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. & Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Mainpuri, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri.

5. On 13.12.2024, the following order was passed:- “As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants, put up this case on 17.01.2025, as fresh, in order to enable him to file supplementary affidavit.”

6. Today, also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants is not in a position to argue the matter. This conduct of learned counsel for the applicants for bench hunting is not appreciated.

7. The case has been filed in August, 2024, even after passage of more than four months, the matter is being lingered for no reason.

8. Learned A.G.A. points out that the charge sheet is of the year 2022 and no orders have been annexed to show that applicants have been summoned. He relying upon the judgement of Apex Court passed in Case of Simplex Infrastructures and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and another in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14785 of 2015 decided on

27.11.2018, reported in Laws (All) 2018 (11) 70, submits that in the absence of any challenge to the summoning order the proceedings cannot be challenged by the accused. Consequently, the present application at the behest of the accused is not maintainable.

9. He further submits that from the FIR as well as statements of charge sheet witnesses, it is clear that allegations as against the applicants for mental and physical harassment of daughter of opposite party no.2 are there and, therefore, offence under relevant sections are made out. He further submits that the Court cannot look into the fact as to whether the charge sheet so filed is proper or not as the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. Said view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Even otherwise all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be looked into by this Court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. 2

11. Perused the record. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge- sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315. 3

12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

13. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated

31.05.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

14. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Rahul. RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4

The aforesaid request of Mr. R.K. Upadhyay, Advocate, cannot be accepted as from the order sheet it is clear that on 14.11.2024 none was present to press this case.

4. The instant application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 31.05.2022 as well as proceeding of Case No.3002 of 2023 (State Vs. Anshul and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0504 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. & Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Mainpuri, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri.

5. On 13.12.2024, the following order was passed:- “As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants, put up this case on 17.01.2025, as fresh, in order to enable him to file supplementary affidavit.”

6. Today, also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants is not in a position to argue the matter. This conduct of learned counsel for the applicants for bench hunting is not appreciated.

7. The case has been filed in August, 2024, even after passage of more than four months, the matter is being lingered for no reason.

8. Learned A.G.A. points out that the charge sheet is of the year 2022 and no orders have been annexed to show that applicants have been summoned. He relying upon the judgement of Apex Court passed in Case of Simplex Infrastructures and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and another in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14785 of 2015 decided on

27.11.2018, reported in Laws (All) 2018 (11) 70, submits that in the absence of any challenge to the summoning order the proceedings cannot be challenged by the accused. Consequently, the present application at the behest of the accused is not maintainable.

9. He further submits that from the FIR as well as statements of charge sheet witnesses, it is clear that allegations as against the applicants for mental and physical harassment of daughter of opposite party no.2 are there and, therefore, offence under relevant sections are made out. He further submits that the Court cannot look into the fact as to whether the charge sheet so filed is proper or not as the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. Said view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Even otherwise all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be looked into by this Court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. 2

11. Perused the record. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge- sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315. 3

12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

13. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated

31.05.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

14. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Rahul. RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4