Allahabad High Court
Ram Singh Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 October, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196214 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21527 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Singh Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhawna Verma,Siya Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 1.4.2019, charge sheet dated 19.1.2019 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 11240 of 2019 (State of UP Vs. Ram Singh Verma) arising out of the Case Crime No. 451 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406 and 352 IPC, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
3. An FIR has been lodged on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 levelling allegation of criminal breach of trust and cheating against the present applicants with an averment that the present applicant has launched a financial scheme and invited investment from the public. Opposite Party No. 2 being an agent has got invested some money from 24 persons, who are throughout pressurizing the first informant to return the money, however, the applicant has stopped the scheme and refused to pay any money.
4. It is submitted that all the money received by the applicant in the alleged financial scheme has already been returned to the person concerned, as such, he is not liable to pay any money to any person. It is further submitted that by stretch of any imagination, neither any case is made out under Sections 420, 406 and 352 IPC nor any case could be made out for criminal breach of trust against the present applicant inasmuch as first informant was an agent in the company of the applicant. It is further submitted that false and malicious prosecution has been instituted against the present applicant just to exert undue pressure upon them for some ulterior motives known to the informant best. It is further submitted that cognizance has been taken on the printed proforma and reasoned order has not been passed while taking cognizance and issuing summons.
5. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Having considered the rival submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perusal of record, prima facie, it reveals that unequivocally allegation has been made against the present applicant for receiving money from the investor in the financial scheme launched by him. From perusal of the facts as averred in the FIR, prima facie, the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of crime cannot be ruled out. So far as the fact with respect to the return of entire money to the investor, as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, is concerned, it is a matter of investigation, which can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by the trial court. The submission with regard to the issuance of summons on the printed proforma, as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, is also not acceptable as well inasmuch as in a police case, the court concerned is benefited with the thorough investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer while submitting the charge sheet and the materials submitted along with it, therefore, detailed observation for summoning the accused is not required in the matter of police case which is different from the normal complaint case wherein detailed summoning order is required to be passed. In the matter of Om Prakash and Another Vs. State of UP and another in Application U/S No. 3041 of 2022 reported in 2022 (8) ILR (ALLD) 222 cited by the learned AGA, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 and Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1140, expounded that in the matter arising out of police case issuing an order of cognizance on the printed proforma does not warrant any indulgence of this Court. It is further observed by the co-ordinate Bench that such cognizance order cannot be treated to be illegal. The relevant paragraph Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the order passed in the case of Om Prakash and another (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:
"13. The next argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that cognizance order was passed by the court below on printed proforma in cryptic manner, which reflects non-application of judicial mind.
14. The present case is a State case, in which, after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and court below took cognizance on the basis of police report.
15. The Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 observed as:-
"23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge- sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process.
In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the Accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the Accused is based upon satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the Accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file."
16. Recently, three judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. The State of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1140 after considering the matter in detail observed in paragraph no. 75 as:-
"75. The Special Judge, it must be noted, took cognizance on the basis of a report submitted under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure and not on the basis of a private complaint. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (supra). The Special Judge took note of the FIR, the witness statements, and connected documents before taking cognizance of the offence. In this backdrop, it would be far-fetched to fault the order of the Special Judge on the ground that it does not adduce detailed reasons for taking cognizance or that it does not indicate that an application of mind. In the facts of this case, therefore, the order taking cognizance is not erroneous."
17. Further, the Apex Court in para 85 (viii) summarised as:-
"85 (viii) Since cognizance was taken by the Special Judge based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind to the material;"
7. Record reveals that learned counsel for the applicant has raised disputed question of fact qua involvement of present applicant in the incident in question.
8. In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to analyze the factual evidence which is to be placed before the trial court. The power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very specific and wide to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. No provision of this Code is deemed to limit or effect such inherent power of the High Court.
9. It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686 3; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. : (2001) 8 SCC 645; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC 706 that exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception.
10. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in Paragraph 61 which is quoted herein below :-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR or a complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline en-grafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court."
11. In Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018, Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and others, 2019 (6) SCC 107, the Apex Court has held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidences of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because where there are contradictions or the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidences and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial, when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. The same view has also been reiterated in judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10762 of 2018, Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another.
12. In the case of Priti Saraf & anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. Criminal Appeal No(s). 296 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6364 of 2019] (judgment dated March 10, 2021) : 2021 SCC Online SC 206 the Apex Court while considering the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as follows:
"23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirely shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/ FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record.
13. The scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC has been examined in detail by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335). The relevant para is mentioned hereunder:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bur engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code on the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due 10 private and personal grudge."
14. It has been further elucidated recently by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 964 where jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC has been analysed at great length.
15. Further, in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, Full Bench of the Apex Court while considering the powers of quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India has illustrated the circumstances under which quashing of a criminal case can be done and/or interim order can be granted.
16. Therefore, the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. In absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
17. Having considered the rival submissions advance by learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and the material available on record, in the light of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, no ground made out to consider the merits of the instant case. As such, prayer of quashing as made in instant application is hereby refused.
18. Before parting, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in all sections, as mentioned in the FIR, maximum punishment is seven years or less than 7 years, therefore, the bail application if filed by the present applicant may be considered in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 773. In the cited case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given certain guidelines for deciding the bail applications by categorising the offences.
19. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I think it appropriate that in case, the present applicant appears/surrenders before the concerned court below and move bail application within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, expeditiously as early as possible.
20. However, it is further provided that in case applicants move an appropriate application for discharge along with a certified copy of this order before the concerned Court below, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court below as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court.
21. If the concerned Court feels persuaded to have the view that accused ought not to have been summoned and charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the Court below holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
22. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023 vinay