Allahabad High Court
Navneet Bhadauria vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy. ... on 26 September, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6754 of 2022 Applicant :- Navneet Bhadauria Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Sudhanshu S. Tripathi,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings and consequential proceedings of Case No.80697 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijaypal Prajapati and ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.363 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 19.07.2022 passed in the aforesaid case and also for quashing of the charge sheet dated 01.06.2022 filed in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated in the case because of his acquaintance with other co-accused persons.
His further submission is that a false first information report came to be lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and after investigation, charge sheet too came to be filed under aforesaid Sections by the Investigating Officer in a mechanical manner without appreciating the fact that offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. are not made out against the applicant either on the basis of recitals made in the first information report or the evidences collected during the investigation. Therefore, he submits that continuation of Case No.80697 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijaypal Prajapati and ors.) in respect of applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of Court which deserves to be quashed even at this initial stage.
Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and another, (2018) 7 SCC 581.
Per contra learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that when read in entirety, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence whatsoever is made out against the applicant. Their submission is that in so far as the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. are concerned, it is for the learned trial court to come to the conclusion at appropriate stage on the basis of material collected during the investigation whether the same are made out or not. They have also stated that one of the co-accused Vijay Pal Prajapati had moved an application under Section 482 No.6044 of 2022 before this Court seeking quashment of proceedings, which came to be dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.09.2022.
However, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of present applicant stands on better footing than that of the co-accused.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this initial stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing is declined.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's (Supra) case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
In view of the aforesaid case law, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately 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. 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. Therefore, I do not find any justification to quash the proceedings against the applicants as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the proceedings under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears before the court below and applies for grant of anticipatory bail / bail, the court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously on the basis of material available before it in accordance with law having regard to the fact that whether the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. are made out against the present applicant in the facts of this case and on the basis of material collected during investigation.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2022 Saurabh