Allahabad High Court
Smt. Manjeet Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Another on 6 August, 2018
Author: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? A.F.R. Court No. - 48 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4240 of 2007 Applicant :- Smt. Manjeet Kaur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Y.S. Bohra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 16.01.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 420 of 2006 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Sambhal, Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 77/09 of 2006, Tarif Singh vs. Manjeet Kaur, under sections 500/501 I.P.C., P.S. Naksha, District Moradabad pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Sambhal, Moradabad.
Heard learned applicant's counsel and learned A.G.A. Record has been perused.
Submission of the counsel is that applicant was at the relevant point of time secretary of the committee of management of Lakhauri Inter College, Lakhauri, Moradabad. The president of the Committee was Tarif Singh. It had so happened that opposite party no.2 Tarif Singh was got removed from the post of the President by a resolution dated 8.4.2006. The counsel in this regard drew the attention of the Court to Annexure no-5 to the application. This resolution was also approved by the general body of the society on 28.4.2006 and the same finds place on record at page-52 and is also part of Annexure No.5. The same was communicated to District Inspector Of Schools vide letter dated 1.5.2006, which finds its place on page-54 as Annexure No-6 of the application. The DIOS wrote a letter dated 5.5.2006 in response and the same finds its place on page-55 as Annexure No-6 wherein it was directed that the further proceedings should be followed according to the resolution. As all these facts were available and were matters on record they got published in newspaper dated 21.5.2006. Submission is that it is this news which is said to have lowered the prestige of the opposite party no.2 who for the same reason has brought this criminal complaint against the applicant. Submission is that it is apparent on the face of record that there could not have been any intention on the part of the applicant to defame opposite party no.2. These were the developments of the Institution and even otherwise such developments get published in newspapers in usual course being matters of public interest. Learned counsel has even tried to show that case of the applicant will be covered under Exception 1 of Section 499 I.P.C.. Argument is that if this vital fact was not brought to be published then many people might have continued to have the same impression about the status of opposite party no.2 which existed before he was removed by the aforesaid resolution and therefore it was in public interest and for public good both that people at large should have known the true state of affairs. It is not a case in which some false imputation has been made or a non-existing fact has been informed to the press. The information that was conveyed was not at all misleading and simply contained a true account of statement of facts and therefore the present complaint is inspired by nothing except malice in order to exert coercive pressure upon the applicant so that he may not perform his legal duties in right earnest which he is otherwise required to do. Whether ultimately the resolution shall hold good or not and whether ultimately the opposite party no.2 will succeed to retain his position as president or not are questions foreign to the controversy. There was neither any mansrea on the part of the applicant nor any attempt to deceive anybody. Submission is that the perusal of the complaint itself does not make out offences at all as has been alleged and the continuation of such criminal proceedings shall result in nothing except the abuse of court's process.
Perused the record in the light of submissions made at the bar.
It is considered opinion of this Court that it can be deciphered from the contents of the complaint and the other resolutions which have been shown to the Court by the counsel that there was absolutely no false imputation made on behalf of applicant and whatever has been published is a provable fact and is a matter of record. No false information has been supplied or furnished or got published by the applicant. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it may be inferred that there could have been any bad intention to damage the reputation of opposite party no.2 on the part of the applicant. In fact, the court also finds substance in the statement that publication of the aforesaid facts was in the public good as the public at large has a right to know the actual state of affairs which were going on in the management and especially with regard to the higher echelons of the managerial hierarchy. In this regard we may usefully keep in perspective the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, in which certain categories have been recognized on the basis of which the criminal proceeding against a certain party or the accused may be quashed. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case as follows:-
"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court 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 F.I.R. 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."
In the considered view of this Court this matter falls in category nos.(1),(2),(3) and (7) mentioned hereinabove. This Court finds reason to hold that the complaint in question is inspired by malice and the version contained therein is full of high improbabilities and the continuation of the proceedings on that basis is likely to result in abuse of court's process. No offence can be said to have been made out from the alleged acts said to have been committed by the applicant and therefore, the entire proceeding of complaint in question is liable to be quashed.
In this view of the matter this application is allowed and the entire proceeding of complaint in question against the accused-applicants stand quashed.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 6.8.2018 shiv