Allahabad High Court
Praven And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 March, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
Bench: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18115 of 2020 Applicant :- Praven And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the further proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4808/9 of 2016 (Smt. Sushma vs. Praveen and others), under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar and also summoning order dated 04.10.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar in aforesaid complaint as well as order dated 20.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2019.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have committed no offence. He further submitted that the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the real brother. Prior to the present complaint, there had been a civil dispute between the parties. In the investigation of matter, Investigating Officer did not find any evidence against the applicants and submitted final report whereupon protest application has been filed by opposite party no. 2 which came to be treated as complaint case. It is further submitted that learned Magistrate did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order. No case is made out against the present applicants in the alleged sections. He showed some documents and statement in favour of his contention.
4. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the Magistrate, after recording the statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and considering the injury report of victim, found sufficient evidence for proceeding and passed the impugned order which was challenged before the Sessions Court and decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar rejecting the revision. He further submitted that entire submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants is on fact of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Truth of allegation and statement of witnesses can be adjudicated only after the evidence is produced in the trial court.
5. As per prosecution story, on 10.07.2014 at about 9:00 p.m., when complainant / opposite party no. 2 went to her house and started opening the lock, the accused persons attacked her with bricks and stones. The accused-applicants Sharad Kumar, Praveen and Subhash opened fire upon her with their respective weapon for killing her due to which she and her child sustained injuries. On hearing noise, Sudesh, Sumit, Lalit and Minakshi arrived there and saw the incident. Accused persons beated Minakshi causing her injuries. Accused-applicants fled away extending threat to kill and abusing in filthy language. On the application of complaint, case was registered at Crime No. 307 of 2014. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation and submitted final report. The informant against the final report made a protest application which was treated as complaint. The Magistrate recorded statement of witnesses and on considering injury report of injured person, passed the summoning order.
6. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise.
7. A perusal of allegations made in F.I.R., protest application, statement of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and injury report of victim would show that victim / opposite party no. 2 herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicants for the offence alleged. The question whether the victim will be able to prove the allegation in the manner known to law would arise only at a later stage. It cannot be said that prima-facie case is not made out against the applicant.
8. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details.
9. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme 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)
10. Recently, Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1817 of 2019 (M. Jayanthi Vs. K.R. Meenakshi and another) decided on 02.12.2019 has held:
"It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged."
11. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties and keeping in view the facts and legal proposition discussed hereinabove, I do not find any good ground warranting interference in the matter. It is not a case of grave injustice.
12. Accordingly, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021 Manoj