Allahabad High Court
Irshad Hussain vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 April, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 704
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 17.12.2019 (In Court No. 34) Delivered on 13.04.2020 (At Residence) At Residence Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4048 of 2004 Applicant :- Irshad Hussain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Applicant :- M.D. Singh Shekhar, Shashank Shekhar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vaibhav Goswami, Advocate, for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by sole applicant, Irshad Hussain, with the prayer to quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 803 of 2004 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 256, 259, 379, 411, 413 and 120B I.P.C. and order dated 07.04.2004 whereby Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot (hereinafter referred to as "CJM, Chitrakoot") has taken cognizance and issued warrants to applicant and another, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as "CJM"), Chitrakoot.
3. Facts in brief, as stated in the application, are that applicant obtained his Bachelor of Technology degree in Electrical and Electronics and appointed as Junior Engineer in Indian Telephone Industries Limited, Naini, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "ITI, Allahabad") which is a Central Government undertaking and instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution. In August, 1997, i.e., 23.08.1997 applicant departed for Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) to perform religious obligation Haj (Umera). Just a two days before, i.e., on 21.08.1997, at P.S. Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot, a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") was lodged by one R.N. Verma, Superintendent of Post Offices, Banda Prakhand, Banda against Ram Lakhan Verma, Ayodhya Prasad Pandey and Sushil Chand Tripathi under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. for committing fraud and embezzlement of 5,70,500/-.
4. The case set up in FIR was that on 04.07.1997 one Ayodhya Prasad Pandey, son of Ram Bahori Pandey, resident of Bharatpuri, Karvi, working as Postal Assistant and Supervisor has shown payment of Rs. 75,000/- to R.L. Verma. He also mentioned that he personally knew @ R.L. Verma. The number of Kisan Vikas Patra encahsed are numbers 35BB922551 to 35BB922560, each of which is of Rs. 5,000/- Thereafter on 05.07.1997 one Sushil Chandra Tripathi, son of Chhote Lal Tripathi, resident of Village and Post Lodhwara (Karvi), Dak-Assistant and the above Ayodhya Prasad Pandey again made payment of Rs. 2,25,000/- to aforesaid R.L. Verma against five years-Kisan Vikas Patra Nos. 35BB922561 to 35BB922590, value of each of which was Rs. 5,000/-, at Post Office Karvi. On these Kisan Vikas Patra shown encahsed, Ayodhya Prasad Pandey has obtained signature of a woman Smt. Vimla Devi, who is working as Waterer in Karvi Post Office stating that it is just a paper formality. Vimla Devi informed that the person who has taken payment of these Vikas Patra, was neither known to her nor she had ever seen him. Again on 07.08.1997 working as Dak-Assistant in Karvi Post Office itself, Sushil Chandra Tripathi and Ayodhya Prasad Pandey have shown payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- to above R.L. Verma and on the encahsed Vikas Patras, witness of Smt. Uma Tiwari, wife of Sriram Autar Tiwari was shown by Ayodhya Prasad Pandey. Smt. Uma Tiwari has clarified that on 07.08.1997 when she came to Karvi Post Office, Ayodhya Prasad Pandey told her that this person is very close to him and asked her to witness him stating that it is his responsibility. Smt. Uma Tiwari informed that she said that she does not know R.L. Verma on which he (Ayodhya Prasad Pandey) said that he (R.L. Verma) is resident of Bankat Road. Reposing faith on Ayodhya Prasad Pandey, she witnessed R.L. Verma. That apart, on 26.05.1997 Sushil Chandra Tripathi, Dak-Assistant and Ayodhya Prasad Pandey, Supervisor, Karvi Post Office, have shown payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- to aforesaid R.L. Verma against Kisan Vikas Patra Nos. 31BB0155933 to 015948, each of Rs. 5,000/-. In this way, on 26.05.1997, 04.07.1997, 05.07,1997 and on 07.08.1997 payment of total Rs. 5,70,000/- was shown by Sushil Chandra Tripathi and Ayodhya Prasad Pandey at Karvi Post Office to R.L. Verma. It is further alleged that neither aforesaid Kisan Vikas Patra was issued from any Post Office in the name of R. L. Verma or any other person nor issuance thereof was mentioned in any Government record. Neither Ayodhya Prasad Pandey and Sushil Chandra Tripathi nor Smt. Uma Tiwari were able to tell address or whereabouts of alleged R.L. Verma nor they produced him. In this way R.L. Verma and the abovenamed persons have caused loss of Rs. 5,70,000/- to Postal Department. The aforesaid FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 211 of 1997.
5. Police made investigation and on interrogation of Ram Lakhan Verma found that his real name is Madhrakhan Singh and he has committed fraud along with one Prabhash Singh. On the pointing out of Ram Lakhan Verma alias Madhrakhan Singh and Prabhash Singh Police searched at applicant's house on 26.08.1997 when he was not present and only his wife was present and claimed to have recovered following articles from bed room of applicant:
Sl.
Details of the articles Distinctive nos.
Qty. (nos.) Value of Articles (Rs.) each
1.
Kishan Vikas Patra 34CC579988 1 10,000/-
2. Kishan Vikas Patra 35AA605731-732 2 1,000/-
3. Kishan Vikas Patra 31BB010981-998 18 5,000/-
4. Kishan Vikas Patra 31BB011000 1 5,000/-
5. Indira Vikas Patra 44C652146-170 25 5,000/-
6. Plain non-judicial stamp papers 4 5,000/-each
6. Consequentially on the basis of aforesaid recovery, another FIR as Case Crime No. 216 of 1997 was registered on 27.08.1997 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 568, 471, 256, 257, 259, 379, 411, 413, 120B I.P.C. at P.S. Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot and the allegations in the FIR are that the Informant, Sri R.P. Srivastava, Station House Officer, along with Police Team, on reaching Post Office Karvi, found Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, Assistant Dak Pal and Shiv Ganesh Tripathi, Supervisor. There was also another person namely R.L. Verma and on being searched, from his possession 40 Kisan Vikas Patras of Rs. 5000/-each from Sl.No. 31BB010941 to 980, in the name of aforesaid R.L. Verma, maturity amount whereof was Rs. 3 lac, were found. On being enquired, he told that these Vikas Patra have been given to him by Prabhash Singh Patel who has come on Scooter and I have come here after leaving him on Station. Only he can tell about the Vikas Patras. On this information Police Team along with R.L. Verma proceeded in the search of Prabhash Singh Patel and after a hectic search, information was received that one person has run towards Khoh from the Post Office. On reaching Khoh, seeing the Police he tried to start his Scooter but was caught by employees. He disclosed his name Prabhash Singh, son of Ramesh Singh Patel, Village Rakshpalpur, Police Station Khakhred, District Fatehpur, present address House No. 777A/664, Sultanpur Bhawa, Khuldabad, Allahabad. He also told the name of R.L. Verma as Madhrakhan Singh Patel, son of Shambhoo Singh Patel, Resident of Prashidhpur, Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur and present address Rajrooppur, Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad. He told nothing about his Scooter UP71A/8414. On search being made, one pistol of 315 bore in working condition and four cartridges of 315 bore were found from his possession. In his Scooter, in a polythene bag 50 Kisan Vikas Patra of five and half years of the value of Rs. 5000/- Series No. 31BB015801 to 850 were found in respect of which he informed that he has been given these Vikas Patras by Irshad Ahmad, resident of Karailabad Colony, Allahabad and Jalaluddin, resident of G.T.B. Nagar, Kareli, Allahabad for payment on assurance of 25 per cent commission. If immediate search is made, Kisan Vikas Patras may be recovered from the house of Irshad and Jalaluddin. Prabhash Singh and Madhrakhan Singh also confirmed this information on the basis whereof in the presence of Madhrakhan Singh, his house was searched wherefrom S.B.B.L. Gun Licence No. 8364/77 and 26 live and 5 used cartridges were recovered. He informed that this gun belong to Prabhash Singh but kept in his (Madhrakhan Singh's) house. On further search, 50 Kisan Vikas Patras and 19 Indira Vikas Patras, each of Rs. 5000/- were recovered from an Attatche kept in inner room. On search of house of Prabhash Singh, one Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs. 10,000/- and one of Rs. 5,000/- in the name of Suneeta Singh, issued from Rajrooppur Post Office were found. Besides, 20 Kisan Vikas Patras, 25 Indira Vikas Patras each of Rs. 5000/-, one gold biscuit weighed about 93.80 gram, worth about Rs. 50,000, three stamps of Post Office, Sahatwar, Ballia, 5 piece date blocks, four non-judicial forged stamp papers each of Rs. 5,000/- and cash Rs. 4,34,544/- were recovered. In respect of the cash recovered, it was stated that it is the maturity amount of the Kisan Vikas Patras, encashsed last month at Karvi. On pointing out of Madhrakhan Singh and Prabhash Singh, search was made at the house of Irshad, at Karailabag Colony, Allahabad in presence of his wife Shahida Parveen, wherefrom one Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs. 10,000/- two Kisan Vikas Patras of Rs. 1000/- each, 19 Kisan Vikas Patras and 25 Indira Vikas Patras of Rs. 5000/, and four non judicial stamp papers of Rs. 5000/- which appeared to be forged, were recovered. On the search at the residence of Jalaluddin, at G.T.B. Nagar, karaily, Allahabad 49 Kisan Vikas Patras of Rs. 5000/- each, 30 Indira Vikas Patras each of Rs. 5000/- and 5 forged non judicial stamp papers of Rs. 5000/-, 80 revenue tickets and stamp of post office etc. were recovered. From the Maruti Suzuki Zen parked adjacent to the house, service book, Insurance certificate, 50 Kisan Vikas Patras, Cheque Book and Pass Book of bank account were recovered. The Maruti Zen was allegedly purchased from the payment received from forged encashment of Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of Dr. S.J. Ahmad, 676, G.T.B. Nagar, Kareli, Allahabad. Further investigation revealed that aforesaid Madhrakhan Singh, Javed Ahmad, Jalaluddin, Irshad Ahmad, Prabhash Singh, and Bhupendra Singh have formed a gang and they used to obtain illegally stolen Kisan Vikas Patras and Indira Vikas Patras and by encashing them used to cause loss to Government revenue and in this way they have acquired crores of rupees. Their income is many times than their known sources of income. Request was lastly made to lodge FIR.
7. Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet No. 222 dated 18.11.1997 in Case Crime No. 211 of 1997 and another Charge Sheet No. 221 dated 18.11.1997 in Case Crime No. 216 of 1997.
8. On 28.11.1997, investigation was transferred to Economics Offences Wing of C.I.D. (hereinafter referred to as "EOW, CID, Lucknow") for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. There it was registered as EOW Investigation No. 71 of 1997 in both Crime No. 211 and 216 of 1997. EOW, CID, Lucknow during investigation recorded statements of applicant's wife, Smt. Shahida Parveen, applicant and one Sandeep Mishra. In Parcha No. 38, Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'I.O.') noted that the applicant, Jalaluddin and Javed Ahmad are not found involved in Crime and, therefore, submitted charge sheet under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. against Madhrakhan Singh, Prabhash Singh, Ayodhya Prasad, Shushil Chandra Tripathi and Bhupendra Singh. However, in Parcha No. 36 dated 15.11.2002, I.O. submitted charge sheet against R.L. Verma alias Madhrakhan Singh, Prabhash Singh, Bhupendra Singh, applicant, i.e. Irshad Hussain, Jalaluddin and Javed Ahmad under Sections 420, 468, 471, 257, 259, 379, 411, 413, 120B I.P.C. Magistrate, thereafter, has taken cognizance and issued warrants to applicant and others vide order dated 07.04.2004.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that search was conducted in the absence of independent witness and without complying with the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Kishan Vikas Patras and Indira Vikas Patras were recovered from the accused Madhrakhan Singh and Prabhash Singh but planted in the house of applicant to implicate him falsely and recovery is nothing but fake.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for applicant further submitted that once a Parcha was submitted and nothing was found against applicant, another charge-sheet submitted against applicant is patently illegal and applicant has been falsely implicated.
11. Record shows that statement of applicant's wife herself was recorded by I.O., EOW, CID, Lucknow. She admitted that Police came to her house for making search though did not find anything objectionable therefrom. Recovery memo shows that she refused to put her signature on the Fard.
12. Whether the defence taken by applicant that seizure is forged and nothing was found from applicant's house is correct or not is a matter of defence of applicant and evidence is yet to be recorded in Trial. At this stage, it is impermissible to assess and examine the entire case as a Trial Court to find out whether applicant has been falsely implicated or not.
13. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 482 Cr.P.C. this Court is not supposed to examine defence evidence as a Trial Court when after taking cognizance Magistrate has issued warrant and evidence is yet to be adduced in Trial.
14. The principles which justify interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Court have been laid down in various authorities in which Supreme Court's judgment in Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 was leading precedent and thereafter matter has been examined by even Larger Benches.
15. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) issue of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been considered and what has been laid down therein in paragraph 102 has been repeatedly followed and reiterated consistently. In very recent judgment in Google India Private Limited Vs. Visakha Industries and Ors., AIR 2020 SC 350, guidelines laid down in paragraph 102 in Bhajal Lal's case (supra) have been reproduced as under :
"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 bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or 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 to private and personal grudge." (emphasis added)
16. Court has also reproduced note of caution given in paragraph 103 in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) which reads as under :
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." (emphasis added)
17. What would be the scope of expression "rarest of rare cases" referred to in para 103 in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) has been considered in Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , 2010 (6) SCC 243. Court has said that words "rarest of rare cases" are used after the words 'sparingly and with circumspection' while describing scope of Section 482 CrPC. Those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'. They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression "rarest of rare cases" is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasize that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection.
18. Supreme Court in Jeffrey J. Diermeier (supra) in fact referred to an earlier three Judges' Bench judgment in Som Mittal Vs. State of Karnataka, 2008 (3) SCC 753, to explain phrase "rarest of rare cases". In Som Mittal (supra), Court also said that exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not a rule but exception. Exception is applied only when it is brought to notice of Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be added if trial is allowed to proceed where accused would be harassed unnecessarily or if trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. Whenever question of fact is raised which requires evidence, Courts always said that at pre trial stage i.e. at the stage of cognizance taken by Magistrate power under Section 482 CrPC would not be appropriate to be utilized, since, question of fact has to be decided in the light of evidence which are yet to be adduced by parties.
19. In Lakshman vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2019 (9) SCC 677 Court said that it is not permissible for High Court in application under Section 482 CrPC to record any finding wherever there are factual disputes. Court also held that even in dispute of civil nature where there is allegation of breach of contract, if there is any element of breach of trust with mens rea, it gives rise to criminal prosecution as well and merely on the ground that there was civil dispute, criminality involved in the matter cannot be ignored. Further whether there is any mens rea on part of accused or not, is a matter required to be considered having regard to facts and circumstances and contents of complaint and evidence etc, therefore, it cannot be said pre judged in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
20. In Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 3913, Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction though wide and expansive has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise would justify by tests specifically laid down in Section itself. In paragraph 14 of judgment, Court said :
"14. For interference Under Section 482, three conditions are to be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave, and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable and clear and not doubtful and there should exist no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief." (emphasis added)
21. Court also said that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were Trial Court. Court has only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. For that limited purpose, Court can evaluate material and documents on record but it cannot appreciate evidence to conclude whether materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting accused. High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC embarking upon an enquiry into whether evidence is reliable or not or whether on reasonable apprehension of evidence, allegations are not sustainable, or decide function of Trial Judge. For the above proposition, Court relied on its earlier authority in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and others vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque and others, 2005 (1) SCC 122.
22. Power under section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if basic ingredients of offfences alleged are altogether absent criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. , 2010 (8) SCC 524, Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 and Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors., 1976 AIR 1976 SC 1947, Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (supra) said that where allegations set out in complaint or charge sheet do not constitute any offence, it is open to High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash order passed by Magistrate taking cognizance of offence. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is intended to prevent abuse of process of Court and to clear ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under CrPC. Magistrate also has to take cognizance applying judicial mind only to see whether prima facie case is made out for summoning accused persons or not. At this stage, Magistrate is neither required to consider FIR version nor he is required to evaluate value of materials or evidence of complainant find out at this stage whether evidence would lead to conviction or not.
23. It has also been so observed in Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 772 and Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta and Ors. , 2015 (3) SC 424 and followed recently in Roshni Chopra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (7) Scale 152. Here Court also referred to judgment in Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 139, wherein paragraph 9, Court said that in determining the question whether any process has to be issued or not, Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not and whether there is sufficient ground for conviction; whether the evidence is adequate for supporting conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry.
24. However, it is also true that at the stage of issuing process to the accused, Magistrate is not required to record reasons. In U. P. Pollution Control Board vs. Mohan Meaking Limited and others, 2000 (3) SCC 745 after referring to a decision in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs State of West Bengal 2001 SCC 722, Court said as under :
"Legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of complaint without issuing process. There is no such requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passed detailed order while issuing summons. Process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that Magistrate had not passed a speaking order." (emphasis added)
25. Same proposition was reiterated in Nupur Talwar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and others, 2012 (11) SCC 465.
26. In a Three Judges' Bench in Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. Vs State of Gujarat and Ors, 2017 (9) SCC 641, Court has observed that Section 482 CrPC is prefaced with an overriding provision. It saves inherent power of High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Paragraph 15 of the judgment Court summarized as under :
"(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash Under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power Under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." (emphasis added)
27. Above observations have been reiterated in Arun Singh and other Vs State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal no.250 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5224 of 2017), decided on 10.02.2020.
28. I do not propose to burden this judgment with similar catena of decisions, since all are in similar lines.
29. In the present case, the entire argument of applicant is basically his defence which cannot be examined at this stage.
30. Time and again it has been highlighted by Supreme Court that at the stage of charge sheet factual query and assessment of defence evidence is beyond purview of scrutiny under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Courts have highlighted repeatedly that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution.
31. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others (2019) 6 SCC 107, 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)
32. Recently, above view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadaun and another) decided on 31.01.2020.
33. No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.
34. In view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in impugned charge sheet or cognizance order of Magistrate.
35. This application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
36. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 13.04.2020 PS