Allahabad High Court
Mohit Pathak @ Mohit Kumar Pathak vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 September, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13449 of 2020 Applicant :- Mohit Pathak @ Mohit Kumar Pathak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused material on record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case as well as summoning order dated 23.05.2015, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur, in Complaint Case No. 6537 of 2014 (Premsheela vs. Ashish & others), under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for applicant that the impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations against the applicant and that no amount was handed over to applicant as alleged by the complainant. The applicant was posted as Deputy Manager in H.D.F.C. Bank, Branch Badhhalganj, Gorakhpur from August 2002 to April 2013 and that he was not dealing with such work as alleged by the complainant. Regarding delay in filing the present application, it has been submitted that applicant has absolutely no knowledge about the impugned summoning order or about the issuance of non bailable warrants. The applicant has remained posted at different places and that later on he has resigned from H.D.F.C. bank and joined Indusland Bank in 2015 at Faridabad and worked there as Senior Manager till 2016. It has been further submitted that no satisfaction has been recorded by the trial Court regarding issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and order-sheet of the case shows that no summon or warrant has ever been served upon the applicant. It has been further submitted that applicant is willing to surrender before the Court concerned.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the material on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out, hence the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed.
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.
In the instant matter, 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 view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicants, on the basis of which the impugned complaint can be quashed going by the settled law in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
Similarly so far as the impugned summoning order is concerned, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned order has 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. In the instant case no case for quashing of impugned order is made out.
Accordingly the prayer for quashing the impugned complaint and impugned order is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter and impact of COVID-19 Pandemic, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of 45 from today or till the applicant surrenders before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
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 :- 9.9.2020 A. Tripathi