Allahabad High Court
Vachaspati Sharma & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 10 August, 2010
Author: Naheed Ara Moonis
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5323 of 1988 Petitioner :- Vachaspati Sharma & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- B.R. Tripathi,Anil Kr. Sharma Respondent Counsel :- A.G.A.,K.S.Chauhan Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge sheet as well as further proceedings of case crime no.592 of 1987, under Sections 307, 109, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. The opposite party no.2 had lodged the FIR against the applicants on 2.10.1987 in respect of the incident which had happened on the same day, when they had tried to assault the complainant with knife and the complainant received injuries in his stomach and on his hand. After registration of the FIR the police investigated the case. After collecting material evidence the police submitted charge sheet upon which the court below has taken cognizance.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the criminal prosecution has been launched against the applicants wherein the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance mechanically in routine manner.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants, the cognizance taken by the trial court, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face the trial suffers from no illegality and as such the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is refused.
At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material place on record only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Crl) 192.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage the test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court;
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. At the same time High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.
However, considering the facts, it is directed that in case applicants appear before the court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in view of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 The same has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. on 23.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009.
No coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants within stipulated period of 30 days.
In case the applicants did not appear before the court within stipulated time the court below shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the applicants. With this direction, this application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 10.8.2010 Mustaqeem.