Sandeep Jaiswal v. Abhishek and Others), under Sections

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against applicants. It was stated that applicant no.1 has lodged a complaint against opposite party no.2 and others on 30.09.2023 and after that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. In the impugned complaint, one Naagu and Vijay were shown as witness but they were not examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. The witnesses, who have been examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. were not shown as witnesses of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that impugned summoning order has been passed without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned order is not sustainable. In support of his connection, learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon case of Raj Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application under Section - 482 No. 9433 of 2023), decided on 22.03.2023. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are counter blast and no case is made out against applicants.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against applicants.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. In case of Raj Kumar (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court referring to some decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :- "12. It is settled principle that while summoning an accused, the court has to see prima facie evidence. The ''prima facie evidence' means the evidence sufficient for summoning the accused and not the evidence sufficient to warrant conviction. The enquiry u/s 202 CrPC is limited only to ascertain of truth or falsehood of allegations made in the complaint and whether on the material placed by the complainant a prima facie case was made out for summoning the accused or not.

13. As held by the Courts as above, the passing of order of summoning any person as accused is a very important matter, which initiates criminal proceeding against him. Such orders cannot be passed summarily or without applying judicial mind.

14. In light of this legal position I have gone through the impugned order. A perusal of this order indicates that neither any discussion of evidence was made by learned, nor was it considered as to which accused had allegedly committed what overt act. The five accused persons of complaint were summoned for offences mentioned in it. Impugned order clearly lacks the reflection of application of judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is there which may show that learned Magistrate, before passing of the order under challenge had considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence or the law. Therefore it appears that, in fact, no judicial mind was applied before the passing of impugned order of summoning. Such order cannot be accepted as a proper legal judicial order passed after following due procedure of law. Therefore it is liable to ."

8. In the instant mater, perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint alleging that on

22.09.2023, while he was coming back to his house, applicants have abused and assaulted him by stating that why he has cut off his electric connection. It appears that opposite party no.2 was working in the electricity department and he was assaulted due to the reason that electricity officials have cut off the electricity connection of applicants. The complainant has supported the said version in his statement recorded under Section - 200 Cr.P.C.. The version of complainant was further supported by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. It also appears from record that in the complaint filed by the applicant no.1, no summoning order has been passed so far. Perusal of impugned summoning order shows that learned Magistrate has considered facts of the complaint as well as statement of complainant under Section - 200 Cr.P.C. and the applicants were summoned by a reasoned order. Considering the impugned order and material on record, the aforesaid case of Raj Kumar (supra), relied by learned counsel for the applicants, does not help the applicants. Merely because in the complaint it was mentioned that at the time of incident Naagu, Vijay and some other persons have reached at the spot but said Naagu and Vijay have not been examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C., is not sufficient to quash the proceedings of the case. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In view of allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Hence, the prayer as sought above by the applicants is hereby refused.

9. However, the applicants would be at liberty to raise their pleas at the time of charge. It is further directed that in case, applicants appear / surrender before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against applicants. It was stated that applicant no.1 has lodged a complaint against opposite party no.2 and others on 30.09.2023 and after that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. In the impugned complaint, one Naagu and Vijay were shown as witness but they were not examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. The witnesses, who have been examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. were not shown as witnesses of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that impugned summoning order has been passed without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned order is not sustainable. In support of his connection, learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon case of Raj Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application under Section - 482 No. 9433 of 2023), decided on 22.03.2023. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are counter blast and no case is made out against applicants.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against applicants.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. In case of Raj Kumar (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court referring to some decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :- "12. It is settled principle that while summoning an accused, the court has to see prima facie evidence. The ''prima facie evidence' means the evidence sufficient for summoning the accused and not the evidence sufficient to warrant conviction. The enquiry u/s 202 CrPC is limited only to ascertain of truth or falsehood of allegations made in the complaint and whether on the material placed by the complainant a prima facie case was made out for summoning the accused or not.

13. As held by the Courts as above, the passing of order of summoning any person as accused is a very important matter, which initiates criminal proceeding against him. Such orders cannot be passed summarily or without applying judicial mind.

14. In light of this legal position I have gone through the impugned order. A perusal of this order indicates that neither any discussion of evidence was made by learned, nor was it considered as to which accused had allegedly committed what overt act. The five accused persons of complaint were summoned for offences mentioned in it. Impugned order clearly lacks the reflection of application of judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is there which may show that learned Magistrate, before passing of the order under challenge had considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence or the law. Therefore it appears that, in fact, no judicial mind was applied before the passing of impugned order of summoning. Such order cannot be accepted as a proper legal judicial order passed after following due procedure of law. Therefore it is liable to ."

8. In the instant mater, perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint alleging that on

22.09.2023, while he was coming back to his house, applicants have abused and assaulted him by stating that why he has cut off his electric connection. It appears that opposite party no.2 was working in the electricity department and he was assaulted due to the reason that electricity officials have cut off the electricity connection of applicants. The complainant has supported the said version in his statement recorded under Section - 200 Cr.P.C.. The version of complainant was further supported by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. It also appears from record that in the complaint filed by the applicant no.1, no summoning order has been passed so far. Perusal of impugned summoning order shows that learned Magistrate has considered facts of the complaint as well as statement of complainant under Section - 200 Cr.P.C. and the applicants were summoned by a reasoned order. Considering the impugned order and material on record, the aforesaid case of Raj Kumar (supra), relied by learned counsel for the applicants, does not help the applicants. Merely because in the complaint it was mentioned that at the time of incident Naagu, Vijay and some other persons have reached at the spot but said Naagu and Vijay have not been examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C., is not sufficient to quash the proceedings of the case. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In view of allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Hence, the prayer as sought above by the applicants is hereby refused.

9. However, the applicants would be at liberty to raise their pleas at the time of charge. It is further directed that in case, applicants appear / surrender before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad