Allahabad High Court
Chandraveer And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 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. - 12811 of 2020 Applicant :- Chandraveer And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Agra, in Misc. Case No. 07 of 2013 (Pokhar Vs. Govind and others) as well as order dated 11.02.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 26, Agra, in Criminal Revision No. 426 of 2019 (Govind and others Vs. State) arising out of Complaint Case No. 07 of 2013 under Section 147, 148, 323, 325 of IPC, Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Agra.
Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The contention of the learned counsel for applicants is that allegations against applicants are false and baseless. Initially, opposite party has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on that basis a case was registered but after investigation, police have submitted final report. Learned Magistrate has again referred the matter for investigation but again the police have submitted final report and that thereafter, protest petition of opposite party no. 2 was treated as a complaint case and applicants were summoned by summoning order dated 19.07.2019. It has been submitted that in fact regarding the alleged incident, an FIR was lodged against opposite party no. 2 by S.D.M. and in that matter charge sheet has already been filed against opposite party no. 2. Similarly, one FIR was lodged from side of applicants and in that matter also opposite party no. 2 has been charge sheeted. It was further submitted that as a counterblast, the opposite party no. 2 has filed protest petition after three years and thus, in view of these facts no prima facie offence is disclosed against applicants. Learned trial court has passed the impugned summoning order without considering entire relevant facts and that Revision against that summoning order was also dismissed ignoring relevant facts and law.
Learned AGA has opposed the application and argued that allegations made against applicants makes out a prima facie case. Opposite party no. 2 has sustained grievous injury. At this stage evidence cannot be examined meticulously. It was further submitted that no case for quashing is made out.
It is well settled that in determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Same proposition was reiterated by the Court in Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2012) 11 SCC 465.
In the instant matter, 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. The averments made in complaint/protest petition, coupled with other material on record, makes out a prima facie case against applicants. The matter has been thoroughly examined by the revisional Court also and the summoning order was upheld. No substantial illegality or any material irregularity could be shown in the impugned orders. 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.
The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants 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.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the aforementioned impugned orders is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter and impact of Covid-19 Pandemic, it is directed that in case applicants appear and surrender before the Court below and apply for bail within a period of 45 days from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
Applicants would also be at liberty to move discharge application before court concerned in accordance with law and in such eventuality, the discharge application shall be decided in accordance with law.
The party may file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicants.
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 is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 25.8.2020 Mohit