Allahabad High Court
Devendra Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 November, 2024
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182454 Reserved on- 19.11.2024 Delivered on- 22.11.2024 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5859 of 2021 Applicant :- Devendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Vikram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kalpana Singh,Pusp Raj Singh,Sachin Sharma,Zafar Ali Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record on board.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order impugned dated 20.01.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No. 0000032 of 2020, affirming the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Shikohabad/Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 2374 of 2016 (Dhirendra Pratap Singh Vs. Devendra Singh and Others) whereby summons have been ordered to be issued against the present applicants u/s 406 I.P.C.
3. Facts culled out from the record are that opposite party no.2-complainant (later referred to as 'O.P. No.2') is a farmer. After harvesting his potato crop, intending to preserve it, he has deposited/stored total 1908 packets of potato worth of Rs. 13,35,600/- in cold storage namely Jai Bholenath Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. at Etawah Road, Rudhawali, Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad. Subsequently, while the complainant and his son went on 02.09.2016 to get their potato bags back from the cold storage, they have been thrashed and kicked out therefrom. Officials of the cold storage namely Devendra Singh (director of the cold storage), Lokendra Pratap Singh (son of Navratan Singh) and Ashok Kumar have refused to return the potato bags. Having been aggrieved with the behaviour of the officials of the cold storage, O.P. No.2 has moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has been treated as complaint. In support of his pleading, O.P. No.2 has disclosed the receipt number and number of potato bags deposited in the cold storage on different dates. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 22.02.2017, has issued summons against Devendra Singh, Ashok Kumar and Lokendra Pratap Singh u/s 406 I.P.C. Having been aggrieved, Lokendra Pratap Singh alone has preferred a revision assailing the summoning order dated 22.02.2017. Revisional court, vide its order dated 21.01.2021, has dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. While passing the summoning order, learned Magistrate has considered the statements of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. namely Lokendra Pratap (P.W.-1) and Raghvendra Singh (P.W.-2).
4. Learned counsel for the applicants, while assailing the summoning order dated 22.02.2017 and the order of the revisional court dated 20.01.2021, has advanced solitary submission that criminal proceeding is not maintainable for loss or non delivery of any goods stored in a cold storage; and proper remedy available to the complainant is to move an appropriate application before the Licensing Officer under the provisions of law, as enunciated u/s 24 and 25 of U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act 1976, U.P. Act No.11 of 1976, (in brevity 'Cold Storage Act'). It is next submitted that the provisions of the Cold Storage Act have been misread and misinterpreted by the learned revisional court who has illegally negated the claim of the present applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has vehemently opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and contended that the provisions of the Cold Storage Act are not fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as present applicants have deliberately usurp the goods (potato bags) which had been deposited/stored by the complainant in the cold storage. It is next submitted that statements u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are fully make out the case in favour of the complainant, thus, instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed being misconceived and devoid of merits.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicants as well and contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as averred in the complaint, prima facie, a case of criminal breach of trust cannot be ruled out. Thus, order passed by the court below may be affirmed and instant application may be dismissed.
7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that complainant in his complaint has come with a specific plea that he has deposited/stored 1908 packets of potato in the cold storage of the present applicants which is valued about Rs. 13,35,600/-, however, the applicants (accused) have refused to return said packets to the complainant and misbehaved with him. Counsel for the applicants has resorted to the provisions of Cold Storage Act and came with the specific plea that present complainant has an alternative remedy to move an appropriate application to get compensation for loss of his goods. He has laid emphasis on Sections 24 and 25 of the Cold Storage Act, which are quoted herein below:
"24. Compensation for loss, destruction, etc. - Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the licensee shall be liable to pay to the hirer compensation for every loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of the goods stored in his cold storage caused by the negligence, misconduct or default on the part of such licensee.
25. Dispute regarding compensation to be referred to the Licensing Officer. - (1) Every dispute regarding compensation payable by the licensee under Section 24 shall be referred to the Licensing Officer, and subject to the result of appeal, if any, under Section 36, the order of the Licensing Officer shall be final. (2) When the Licensing Officer is satisfied that any compensation payable by a licensee under sub-section (1) has not been paid within thirty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, from the date of the decision of the Tribunal under Section 36, he shall issue a certificate of recovery to the Collector, and the Collector shall recover the amount of such compensation together with costs of recovery as arrears of land revenue and pay the amount realised, after deduction of costs, to the hirer."
8. Section 24 of the aforesaid Act denotes that the licensee is under obligation to pay compensation to the hirer for every loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods stored in the cold storage caused by negligence, misconduct or default at the part of such licensee. Considering the provisions of Section 24 of the Cold Storage Act in the given circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, such provision is not applicable in its letter and spirit. There is no case of licensee of the cold storage that goods (potato bags) deposited by complainant was lost, destructed, damaged, deteriorated or not delivered owing to negligence, misconduct or default at his part. As per case put forward by the complainant, officials of the cold storage have deliberately with a mala fide intention refused to return the goods stored by him (hirer). Present applicants, although, are intended to resort to the leverage u/s 24 and 25 of the Cold Storage Act, however, failed to put forward any pleading satisfying the ingredients of aforementioned sections. None of the parties have pressed any of the grounds/ingredients which may make out a case of compensation u/s 24 and 25 of the Cold Storage Act. Mere citing legal provisions is not suffice to make out a case to be considered under the said legal provisions unless succinct pleading is made out in this regard and the relevant facts are averred to make out a case to be considered under the particular provisions of law. Loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods stored in the cold storage bigot by negligence, misconduct or default at the part of the licensee is totally a different phenomenon than that of deliberate and mala fide intention at the part of the licensee who dishonestly wants to usurp the goods of hirer stored in his cold storage. Unequivocal pleadings at the part of the complainant, pointing out the overt act of the present applicants who have thrashed and abused the complainant and refused to return the stored goods, does not come within the contour denoted u/s 24 and 25 of the Cold Storage Act. Thus, I am skeptical of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants that non delivery of goods can be compensated by moving an appropriate application u/s 24 and 25 of Cold Storage Act. Amazingly, O.P. No.2 is running from pillar to post since September 2016 to recover his damages, however, applicants are throughout trying to keep the complainant indulged in legal complications.
9. Moreover, learned Magistrate, having considered the pleading in the complaint and the statements u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., has came to conclusion, prima facie, that criminal breach of trust is made out u/s 406 I.P.C. As per the complaint case, 1908 bags of potato were given to the cold storage to store the same in its safe custody, however, the officials of the cold storage, who have been entrusted with the property, have dishonestly misappropriated said goods. At this juncture, it would not be befitting to discuss all the facts of the case in detail in the light of the provisions as enunciated u/s 405 and 406 I.P.C., however, to make out a prima facie case for the purposes of initiating the criminal proceeding, minor discussion of the facts in the light of the definition u/s 405 I.P.C. in suffice.
10. Prima facie, the ingredients as enunciated u/s 405 I.P.C. for the purposes to make out a case for criminal breach of trust is made out as per ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Gaba and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Another [(2023) 3 SCC 423] and Sachin Garg Vs. State of U.P. and Another [(2024) SCR (Crl) 546]. More discussions of the case at this juncture may prove fatal to the case of the parties, whereas trial is still pending before the court concerned. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly issued the summons against the accused persons calling them upon for the occurrence of offence u/s 406 I.P.C. Apart from that, revisional court has rightly affirmed the summoning order by dismissing the revision filed on behalf of the accused.
11. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant application in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s/ 482 Cr.P.C. Innocence of the applicants, as is being tried to put forward by learned counsel for the applicants, is a matter of examination which can be adjudicated upon by the trial court more appropriately after appraising the evidence on record. At this juncture, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial to examine the innocence of the present applicants. I neither found any abuse of the process of law to the proceeding which has been challenged before this Court nor any justifiable ground to pass any order for the purposes of securing the ends of justice, therefore, there is no justification to exercise inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Record reveals that learned counsel for the applicants has raised disputed question of fact qua involvement of present applicants in the incident in question.
12. In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to analyse 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.
13. 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.
14. 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."
15. 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.
16. 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."
17. 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."
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. As such, instant application under Section 482 CrPC, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024 Sumit K.