Allahabad High Court
Vedmanidhar Dwivedi And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 August, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11625 of 2020 Applicant :- Vedmanidhar Dwivedi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in Court is taken on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 25.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, District Basti in Complaint Case No. 90 of 2019 (Vijay Pal Vs. Vashisth Dhar and others) whereby applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Dubauliya, District Basti as well as to quash the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Misc. Case No. 51 of 2020 (Vashishtdhar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby revision filed against the summoning order dated 25.05.2019 has been dismissed at the admission stage.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and that impugned complaint has been filed on false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that earlier one non-cognizable report was filed against complainant and others on 27.10.2018 and as a counter blast of the same instant proceedings have been initiated after one month with malafide intention and that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. It was further submitted that impugned summoning order as well as revisional Court's order are against facts and law therefore the impugned impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A., has opposed the application and argued that allegations made in the complaint makes out a prima facie case against the applicants. It was further submitted that at this stage it cannot be said that complaint has been filed as counter blast rather it is a cross version of opposite party no.2. It was next submitted that in view of allegations made against applicants, prima facie offence is disclosed against the applicants, hence the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with by this Court.
In the instant matter, there are clear allegations against applicants and that they have given beating to the complainant by hands and fists. The complainant has also supported the version of complaint in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Similarly, the witnesses who were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have also supported the version of complaint. Learned Court below has considered the matter in correct perspective while passing the impugned summoning order. The matter was again thoroughly examined by learned revisional Court and the order of summoning was upheld.
It is well settled that in determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Same proposition was reiterated by the Court in Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2012) 11 SCC 465.
The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the instant matter, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned orders have been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power can not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C, to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.
Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the aforementioned impugned orders is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter and impact of Covid-19 Pandemic, it is directed that in case applicants appear and surrender before the Court below and apply for bail within a period of 45 days from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
The party may file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicants.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 26.8.2020/S.Ali