Allahabad High Court
Dr. Om Narain Mishra And Anr. (Complaint ... vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 9 July, 2019
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 28 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 421 of 2013 Applicant :- Dr. Om Narain Mishra And Anr. (Complaint Case) Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Court no.30 Lucknow in Complaint Case No.572 of 2012 including the entire criminal proceedings of the case under section 323/504 IPC, P.S. Hasanganj, District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant/opposite party no.2 is the student of LL.B fourth Semester of Lucknow University and the petitioner no.1 is the Head of Department and Dean Faculty of Law in Lucknow University. An application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by opposite party no.2 against the petitioners before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Lucknow and the learned Magistrate has treated the application as a complaint case and recorded the statements of the complainant under section 200 and the witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. and after recording the statements, summoning order has been passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the necessary facts and in utter ignorance of the grounds has illegally passed the summoning order. He has also submitted that the main reason behind institution of the application under section 156 (3)Cr.P.C. against the petitioners is that respondent no.2 when appeared in LL.B. examination had failed in two papers of third semester but in fourth semester, the opposite party no.2 had passed in back paper but his aggregate had gone below 48% in each semester and had failed in more than four subjects as such he was not found eligible for the fifth semester. Therefore, he had started to make complaints against the persons concerned to his examination and this has resulted in institution of criminal proceeding against the petitioners and other persons. Learned counsel also submits that the learned court below has wrongly appreciated the contents of complaint memo and wrongly summoned the petitioners to face the trial without appreciation of the statements of the witnesses, which do not support the case.
Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He also submits that the impugned summoning order has been passed in arbitrary manner in ignorance of material facts and evidence on records and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Learned AGA for the state has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that after considering the statements under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the court below has rightly summoned the petitioners. He also submits that there are no sufficient grounds for invoking in extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. No one appears for respondent no.2 even in the revision of list.
In the present case, the complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 to mount pressure on the petitioners for permitting him in fifth semester as he was declared unsuccessful in the fourth semester of LL. B. Course. The learned magistrate treated the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case and summoned the petitioners as an accused. The petitioner no.1 is the Head of Department and Dean Faculty of Law in Lucknow University and the petitioner no.2 is the associate professor in Lucknow University while the complainant is a student of LL.B. Forth Semester Course.
The complaint has been filed with malicious intention. "Malicious prosecution" is a legal term pertaining to any prosecution made without probable cause or for purposes other than bringing an alleged criminal to justice. A victim of malicious prosecution can file action for damages suffered because of the malicious prosecution. Prosecution is the process through which the state brings criminal charges against an individual. Any prosecution must have a foundation of probable cause or reason to believe the individual committed the crimes in question.
In view of above, this Court is of the view that criminal proceedings against the petitioners by opposite party No. 2 is nothing but a malicious prosecution and is a clear abuse of process of Court. Impugned summoning order dated 29.11.2012 is also not sustainable, as no offence is made out against the petitioners.
This Court under the facts and circumstances of this case, feels that it is the solemn duty of the Court to protect apparently an innocent person, not to be subjected to such frivolous prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable allegations and complaint, if criminal proceeding is allowed to go on, the same will tantamount to causing grave mis-carriage of justice, therefore in order to secure the ends of justice, the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Court no.30 Lucknow in Complaint Case No.572 of 2012 (Chandra Shekhar vs. Om Narain Mishra and others) including the entire criminal proceedings of the case under section 323/504 IPC, P.S. Hasanganj, District Lucknow are hereby quashed Consequently, the present petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019 VNP/-