Allahabad High Court
Sudhir Singh Gaur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 August, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12389 of 2020 Applicant :- Sudhir Singh Gaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused material on record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding including the summoning order dated 23.08.2017 in Complaint Case No. 192 of 2017 (Vijay Khanna vs. Sudhir Singh Gaur), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Additional Judge/ Presiding Officer, Jhansi.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is against the facts and law and that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The impugned summoning order has been passed in mechanical manner. It was further submitted that applicant is ready and is willing to pay the due amount to the complainant/ opposite party no.2.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that from the complaint and material on record prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It was stated that it is compoundable offence and if the applicant wants to compund the matter by paying entire dues in respect of the alleged cheque, he may approach the trial Court.
The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and 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.
After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicant, on the basis of which the entire proceeding can be quashed going by the settled law in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
Similarly so far as the impugned summoning order is concerned, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned order has been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power can not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case no case for quashing of impugned order is made out.
Accordingly the prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding and impugned summoning order is refused.
However, keeping in view the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is willing to pay the entire dues of complainant in respect of alleged cheque and to compound the matter, it is directed that if the applicant moves an appropriate application to pay the entire due amount and compound the matter, within three weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the learned Court below in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
The party may file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
With the aforesaid direction, the application of applicant is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.8.2020 A. Tripathi