Allahabad High Court
Himanshu Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 September, 2023
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188349 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28797 of 2023 Applicant :- Himanshu Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 237 of 2023, (State vs. Himanshu Kumar), Case Crime No. 24 of 2023, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Khuldabad, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi, as well as for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 28.03.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 29.03.2023 and charge dated 11.04.2023 in the aforesaid case.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations levelled against applicant are wholly false and that no prime case is made out against applicant. The impugned charge-sheet and proceedings are nothing but abuse of the process of court. The applicant was working as Revenue Inspector and he has merely asked the defacto complainant to produce the 'Khatauni' in respect of land, regarding which the defacto complainant was seeking house number. The allegation that the applicant has demanded any amount or he was apprehended by the trap team, while taking kickback amount of Rs. 10,000/- is wholly false. It is submitted that several persons, who were present at the spot, have submitted affidavits to the effect that applicant was taken away from his office by the Anti Corruption Department by saying that only some interrogation has to be made but later on he was implicated in this case by concocting a false story, whereas, the applicant did not accept any illegal gratification and no amount was recovered from him. Referring to the first information report and material collected during investigation, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that there are allegations that when the defacto complainant has applied for house number, the applicant/Revenue Inspector has demanded bribe of Rs. 25,000/- for submitting favourable report and that on 06.02.2023 the applicant was apprehended by a trap team, when he has accepted the illegal kickback amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the defacto complainant and the said amount was recovered from him. It is further submitted that sufficient evidence has been collected during investigation and a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
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 the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue."
8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legal position, in the instant matter, it may be seen that as per the prosecution, the defacto complainant has applied for house number and in that connection, the applicant, who was working as Revenue Inspector, was demanding the illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from the defacto complainant and later on matter was settled at Rs. 10,000/-. It was also alleged that on the complaint made by the defacto complainant to the Anti Corruption Establishment, the applicant was apprehended while he has accepted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the defacto complainant. Several witnesses have made statements in support of the said allegations. The bribe amount has been recovered from the applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant or the alleged defence version put up by learned counsel for the applicant, cannot be examined at this stage. In the instant matter, in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
9. As noted in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), power of quashing of FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. Here it would also be pertinent to mention that questions of fact cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. In view of aforesaid, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings/charge-sheet and the cognizance/summoning order is made out. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit, and thus, liable to be dismissed. However, the applicant would be at liberty to move an application for discharge at appropriate stage in accordance with law.
11. With aforesaid observations, the application under Section 482 CrPC, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2023 Anand