Allahabad High Court
Riyajuddin And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 October, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
Bench: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9827 of 2020 Applicant :- Riyajuddin And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 3400275 of 2017 (Smt. Chunni Begam vs. Riyajuddin and others) and order dated 10.12.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 62, District Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2019 (Ikbal Ansari and others vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3400275 of 2017, (Chunni Begam vs. Riyajuddin and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Bareilly.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits as under :-
that initially an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant against the applicants before the concerned Magistrate whereupon order of registration of F.I.R. was passed. Matter was investigated by Investigating Officer, who submitted final report in the matter.
that on submission of final report protest application was moved by the complainant which came to be registered as complaint case. Trial Court proceeded with the case and summoned the accused-applicants by impugned order without application of mind.
that there are major contradiction in the statement of complainant and her witnesses.
that it is a matter of civil dispute but the complainant has tried to give colour the civil dispute in to criminal one.
that there is no sufficient evidence in support of prosecution case. He showed some papers and statements in favour of his contention.
4. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the application and submitted that entire submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants is on fact of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Truthfulness of allegation and statement of witnesses can be adjudicated only after the evidence is produced in the trial court.
5. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise.
6. A look at complaint and allegations made herein would show that victim / opposite party no. 2 herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicants for the offence alleged. The question whether the victim will be able to prove the allegation in the manner known to law would arise only at a later stage. It cannot be said that prima-facie case is not made out against the applicant.
7. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details.
8. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :
"15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.
17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."
(emphasis added)
9. Recently, Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1817 of 2019 (M. Jayanthi Vs. K.R. Meenakshi and another) decided on 02.12.2019 has held:
"It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged."
10. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties and keeping in view the facts and legal proposition discussed hereinabove, I do not find any good ground warranting interference in the matter. It is not a case of grave injustice.
11. Accordingly, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.10.2020 Manoj