Allahabad High Court
Narendra Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
Bench: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26517 of 2021 Applicant :- Narendra Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahipal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun K. Singh Deshwal Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard learned Counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.23 of 2021, Mangu Singh versus Narendra Singh and others, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor and summoning order dated 25.10.2021.
Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have committed no offence. Entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. It is further submitted that no offence against the applicants is made out under the aforesaid sections. It is further submitted that applicants are said to have assaulted with kicks and fist but no injury on the person of victim. FIR lodged by opposite party no.2 was investigated and final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer where upon protest application was filed which came to be treated as complaint. Learned Court below recorded the statement of complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively, found sufficient ground for proceedings and passed summoning order. It is further submitted that Court below did not apply his judicial mind. Civil dispute was pending before the competent authority and no finding upon the pendency of civil suit is mentioned in summoning order. It is a case of civil nature and opposite party no.2 trying to settle his dispute of civil nature by making it criminal one. There is material contradiction in the statement of complainant and his witnesses. Statement of witnesses reflects a different story. He placed reliance upon the judgements of Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.1285 of 2021, Mitesh Kumar J. SHA versus The State of Karnataka & Ors and Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2021, Randheer Singh versus The State of U.P. & Ors.
Learned AGA for State as well as learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that there is a specific allegation against the applicants. Learned Court below, after recording the statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., found sufficient ground for proceedings and summoned the accused persons by the impugned summoning order for facing trial. It is further submitted that summoning order passed by Court below is an appealable order and application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Constitution of offence under particular section can be debated at the stage of framing charge.
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.
A look at complaint and allegations made therein, statement of complainant and their witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., impugned summoning order would show that victim / opposite party no. 2 herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicant 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.
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.
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) Upon consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case, rival submission made by learned Counsel for the parties, allegations made in complaint, statements of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. keeping in view law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Rajesh Bajaj and Md. Allauddin Khan (supra); I do not find any good ground warranting interference in the matter. It is not a case of grave injustice.
Accordingly, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2022 I.A.Siddiqui