Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Verma And 2 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 2 August, 2023
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154958 Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20805 of 2022 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Verma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Tiwari,Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Chaturvedi,Sarvesh Chaubey Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; counsel for the opposite party no. 2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 21.02.2022; cognizance order dated 16.05.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.124613 of 2022 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar Verma and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0010 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kashi (commissionerate Varanasi) pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. court no. 1, Varanasi.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. It has been next submitted that on the last occasion the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2022 referred the matter to Mediation Centre by passing following order:
"Heard applicants' counsel as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The quintessence of the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel is that matrimonial dispute is in the genesis of this case. There are chances of amicable settlement between the husband and wife. Applicants' counsel strenuously urged that this case may be referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court so that the couple may have a chance to settle their dispute on their own terms through mediation.
The Court is satisfied on the basis of record and the submissions made before it that the nature of litigation is such that the chances to resolve the matter through process of conciliation do exist and an attempt ought to be made to explore that possibility.
Accordingly, the matter is being referred to the Mediation Centre. The applicants will deposit Rs.20,000/- within 30 days at the Mediation Centre. In case the amount is deposited, the Mediation Centre will issue notices to both the parties returnable within a period of four weeks. Out of the same, Rs.15,000/- will be paid to Opposite Party No.2 for subsistence and to meet out the expenses. The mediator is allowed three months' time to find out possible solution of the dispute between the parties and send his report to the court regarding the outcome of mediation.
List this case before the appropriate Bench along with report of the mediator immediately after three months.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in Case No.124613 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0010 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kashi (Commissionerate Varanasi), pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, (JD)/FTC, Court No.1, Varanasi.
It is made clear that in case of default in depositing the amount as ordered above or on non-participation of the applicants in the mediation proceedings, the interim stay order shall stand automatically vacated."
4. As per mediation report dated 24.01.2023, parties are not willing for mediation, hence mediation failed.
5. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and has submitted that opposite party no. 2 has given statement before the I.O. and prima facie offence is made out against the applicant.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:-
"14. 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."
7. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another has held that:
"To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."
8. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of 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 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned Court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.
Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Meenu Singh