Allahabad High Court
Kalyan 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. - 12481 of 2020 Applicant :- Kalyan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Shukla 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 impugned summoning order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sambhal at Chandausi in Complaint Case No. 155 of 2019 (Badam Singh vs. Kalyan and others), under Sections 323, 392, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sambhal.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations and that no prima facie case is disclosed against the applicant. It was stated that applicant is son of complainant and that as applicant has married against the wishes of his family members and due to that reason, the complainant was not allowing the applicant to reside at his house and that allegations regarding assaulting the complainant are false. It was also pointed out that after marriage of applicant, he was granted protection by the High Court vide order dated 12.04.2019 passed in Writ C No. 12854 of 2019, wherein the parents were restrained from interfering in matrimonial life of applicant.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that there are allegations against the applicant that he has given beatings to his father and that he has also snatched Rs. 5000/- from the house of complainant at the point of pistol.
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.
In the instant matter, 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.
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 case perusal of record shows that there are allegations against applicant that he has assaulted his father /opposite party no.2 and also took money at the point of pistol. The court below has considered all relevant facts and passed impugned order. Material on record makes out a prima facie case against applicant. No material illegality or irregularity could be pointed out in impugned orders.
In view of the aforesaid, no case for quashing of impugned orders or for grant of any other relief is made out. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and accordingly application is rejected.
Order Date :- 26.8.2020 A. Tripathi