Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ramesho vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 June, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 54 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3556 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt. Ramesho Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh,Amit Rai,Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 24.07.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2686 of 2018 (Sonu vs. Smt. Ramesho and another), under Sections 420, 406, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District-Saharanpur.
Heard Mr. Amit Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Entire record has been perused.
A complaint was filed on 12.09.2018 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant alleging therein that on 03.10.2017, the applicant prepared the sale deed in favour of opposite party no.2 and his brother but later on she refused to execute the sale deed, however, for the same, the applicant took Rs. 6 lacs from the opposite party no.2, which was not returned. Thereafter, the applicant and her sons came to the house of opposite party no.2 and threatened him also, therefore, the present complaint was filed. Subsequently, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant was summoned on 24.07.2019 by the court concerned.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegation in the complaint, on 03.10.2017, the applicant prepared a sale-deed but did not execute the same and on 05.11.2017, the applicant alongwith her sons came to the house of opposite party no.2 and threatened him but regarding this, complaint was filed on 12.09.2018 almost after the delay of ten months, which indicates that the allegations made in the complaint are nothing than the bundle of lies. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the real facts of the case that sale deed dated 03.10.2017 was prepared but when the opposite party no.2 and his brothers failed to give the consideration, then the applicant refused to execute the sale deed as such no offence is committed by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated on the ground that there was some dispute between the parties regarding some misunderstanding and the present complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 with false and frivolous allegations. Neither the applicant cheated complainant nor committed criminal breach of trust. There is no oral as well as documentary evidence to prove prima facie case against the applicant. It is further submitted that the court below, without applying his judicial mind, has summoned the applicant in casual manner. The present case is an abuse of process of court and law. It is lastly submitted that the Apex Court has already held that summoning order of the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law applicable on the subject. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant by stating that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of the Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in 2019 0 AIR (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 1152.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the court below has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against them in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
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 reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430, (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 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 reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 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 reported in 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 case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, 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. I do not find any justification to quash the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant 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.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order or the proceedings is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application, keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). It is also provided that if the applicants moves an application for discharge before the Court below within four months from today along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within a period of two months from the date making of discharge application.
For a period of six months from today, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid criminal case.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 10.6.2020 JK Yadav