Allahabad High Court
Jishan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 22 August, 2022
Author: Ajai Tyagi
Bench: Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13234 of 2022 Applicant :- Jishan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sayeed Saif Ullah,Sufia Saba Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing the impugned cognizance order dated 23.03.2022 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.107 of 2022 (State Vs. Jishan and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Saharanpur, pending in the Court of A.J.M III, Saharanpur including the charge sheet dated 04.12.2021 in Case Crime No.546 of 2021.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the same set of occurrence a complaint case was filed by wife of Jishan and after that first information report was lodged under same offence by the mother-in-law of Jishan. Learned counsel has submitted that applicants have been summoned in complaint case for trial under the same offence, in which charge sheet was filed on 04.12.2021. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Jishan is husband and two other applicants are elder brothers of Jishan and all have been falsely implicated.
Learned AGA for the State has opposed the application.
All the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430, (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be fit cases for the High Court in which the Criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The submissions made by the applicants' counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the persual of the FIR and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in ay of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
Grounds submitted by learned counsel for the applicants are not such on the basis of which charge sheet can be quashed and there is no illegality in filing FIR after filing the complaint as court below can proceed under Section 210 Cr.P.C.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
In the last the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants desire to seek their bail application and for that a liberty may be granted to them.
However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that in case the applicants appear before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail be considered and decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Order Date :- 22.8.2022 Ashutosh Pandey