Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 6 September, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145940 Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29970 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Anil Kumar with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 17/321 of 2024 'State Versus Anil Kumar' arising out of charge sheet dated 13.03.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 15.03.2024 and other consequential orders, arising out of Case Crime No. 166 of 2023, U/s 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Amended Act 2018 and Section 120B I.P.C., Police Station Partapur, District Meerut pending in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case. So that justice may be done with the applicant.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the entire proceedings in Court below of Case No. 17/321 of 2024 'State Versus Anil Kumar' U/s 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Amended Act 2018 and Section 120B I.P.C., Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, pending in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut during pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court. Otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injuries which can not be compensated in terms of money."
3. The FIR. of the matter was lodged on 06.5.2023 under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act by Satendra Singh Verma Inspector of U.P. Vigilance Department, Meerut against the applicant on the basis of a recovery and arrest memo with regards to recovery of Rs.77,000/- and arrest of accused Narendra Kumar. The matter was investigated on which a charge sheet was initially submitted against Narendra Kumar on 05.07.2023 whereas investigation against the applicant remained pending. Subsequently the investigation against the applicant concluded and a charge sheet dated 13.3.2024 was submitted against him bearing Charge Sheet No. 6A/2023 for offences under Sections 120B I.P.C. and 7 Prevention of Corruption Act on which the court concerned took cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 15.3.2024. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the aforesaid prayers.
4. The fact of the case was that a complaint was given by the original complainant Zabbar Ahmad that he has a firm and worked through it in the U.P. Van Nigam, Meerut and was to be paid Rs.10 lakh for it. He has been paid around Rs.6.25 lakh and Rs.3.75 lakh remains to be paid. He went to the office of the applicant and the co-accused Narendra Kumar on 25.4.2023 where both the officers demanded bribe money and commission for clearing the remaining amount. There was a demand of Rs.57000/- by the co-accused Narendra and Rs.20,000/- by the applicant. He does not want to pay the bribe money and wants that action be taken against accused persons. On the said application trap proceedings including inquiry were done and two independent persons were nominated by the District Magistrate, Meerut as witnesses to the proceedings. Subsequently on 06.5.2023 trap was laid and when he reached the office concerned, he was informed that the applicant is on leave and Rs.77,000/- was demanded from him. He handed over the entire money to co-accused Narendra Kumar. Subsequent to it the trap team arrested him and a recovery memo was prepared and on the basis of which the present F.I.R. was lodged.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although there is allegation of demand of bribe money but the applicant was not arrested from the spot. It is submitted that the entire allegations against the applicant are false and baseless. The applicant has no authority to pay the remaining amount to the original complainant. It is submitted that one Ankit Kumar was responsible for preparing the remaining bills and processing them for payment. It is further submitted that there is prima facie no case made out against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the court concerned has illegally and arbitrarily without considering the facts of the case, taken cognizance and summoned the applicant.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him. Although he was not arrested in the trap proceedings but investigation states his complicity in the matter. The trial court has taken cognizance on the charge sheet. In so far as the work of the applicant and the work related to the original complainant is concerned, the same cannot be decided at this stage in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen.
8. The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as under:
"13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.) 13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
9. Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.
10. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicant and the law as stated above, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is without any substance and is thus dismissed.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Naresh