Allahabad High Court
Deepak Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 September, 2022
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 85 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17972 of 2022 Applicant :- Deepak Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anubhav Chandra,Ankur Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. C.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 passed Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division)/F.T.C., 1st, District-Varanasi and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.4820 of 2022 (Shiv Shankar Prasad Rai Vs. Uma Shankar Rai & another), under Sections 467, 419, 420, 120B I.P.C., pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division)/F.T.C., 1st, District-Varanasi.
As per the allegations in the complaint, the loan was sanctioned to one Uma Shankar Rai somewhere in February, 2021 for purchasing of car wherein Shiv Shankar Prasad Rai was shown as co-borrower. The marriage of the Shiv Shankar Prasad Rai took place with daughter of Uma Shankar Rai in April, 2021. When the loan installments were not paid, the parties entered into an agreement wherein it was decided that in case father of girl namely, Uma Shankar Rai does not pay the loan amount, his elder brother i.e. uncle of the girl was to pay the entire installments. However, as alleged in the agreement between the parties, the loan was to be paid by father of the girl and car was to be handed over to the husband-Shiv Shankar Prasad Rai. The agreement between the parties was of October, 2021.
It has been further alleged that in the month of September, 2021 when Shiv Shankar Prasad Rai, opposite party no.2 went to get a loan sanctioned for the purpose of purchasing Scooty, he came to know about the default in payment of the loan, which was taken by father of his wife. He tried to approach the bank concerned, detailing about the forgery as committed by father of the girl showing him as co-borrower in the loan which was sanctioned in the month of February, 2021 but when the the Branch Manager did not pay attention to the aforesaid and stated that he was only worried about the installments and nothing more than that, a notice was sent to the parties after which the present complaint was filed. After recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., wherein the version of the complaint has been reiterated stating therein that forgery has been committed in collusion with the Branch Manager. Thereafter, the applicant has been summoned.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while performing his duty as Branch Manager, he has sanctioned loan, therefore, the allegations of forgery are not made out against him. He also submits that as per the agreement the opposite party has not denied that he was co-borrower of the loan which was granted to the father of the girl in February, 2021.
Learned A.G.A. submits that applicant has rightly been summoned by the Court below. From perusal of the complaint as well as statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. offence against the applicant is made out. He further submits that other submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, relates to the factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application along with the impugned order.
In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court can not look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking.
The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment 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."
The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
"39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence............."
In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the order impugned as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2022/Rahul.