Allahabad High Court
Imran vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 February, 2018
Author: Vijay Lakshmi
Bench: Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR. 1 Reserved. Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40448 of 2017 Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
The applicant by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to permit him to withdraw the Complaint Case No.329/2017, Imran Vs. Shahnawaj & Anr. Under Sections 427,504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S.Babugarh, District-Hapur, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Hapur. Prayer has also been made to quash the summoning order dated 23.6.2015, passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division) IInd/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur and the order dated 29.7.2017, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Hapur, whereby the withdrawal application moved by the applicant before the court below has been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. Perused he record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the complainant in the aforesaid case. He had lodged a complaint against the O.P. Nos.2 and 3, under Sections 427,504 and 506 of I.P.C. in pursuance of which the O.P. Nos.2 and 3 had been summoned under the aforesaid sections by the learned Magistrate. Later on, the dispute between the parties was amicably settled outside the court, therefore, the applicant, now does not want to press the complaint filed by him. It is further submitted that the applicant had moved an application for withdrawal of the complaint before the court below, but the learned Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 29.7.2017, rejected his application. Learned counsel has submitted that as the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, no useful purpose would be served in keeping between them a criminal complaint case pending, moreover the valuable time of the court will be wasted, in conducting the trial as the chances of conviction are remote. Therefore, it has been prayed that the impugned summoning order dated 23.6.2015 and the order dated 29.7.2017, whereby the withdrawal application of the applicant has been rejected, be set-aside and the applicant be permitted to withdraw the complaint case filed by him.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that as per the criminal jurisprudence, any offence committed, is not only an offence against the victim in the eyes of law, but the offence is construed as an offence against the State, or in other words against the public at large. In Uttar Pradesh, the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, therefore the court below has rightly rejected the application for withdrawal and there is no illegality in the order impugned requiring any interference by this Court.
Considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The relevant provision providing for withdrawal of a criminal complaint is Section 257 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced below-
"257. Withdrawal of complaint. If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn."
The aforesaid Section 257 Cr.P.C. comes under Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. which provides for trial of summons-cases by Magistrates, thus it is clear that the provisions of Section 257 Cr.P.C. apply only to summons cases.
In the present case, Section 506 I.P.C. is a cognizable and non bailable offence as per the Uttar Pradesh Amendment, it is to be treated as a warrant case and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to permit the complaint and to withdraw.
The scheme of the provisions of Cr.P.C. appears to make out a clear distinction between the summons trials and warrant trials with significant purpose. Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. provides for trial of warrant cases by the Magistrates. Part B of Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. makes provision for warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report and Section 244 Cr.P.C. provides that when, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. The Magistrate has power to discharge the accused under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. if, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244 Cr.P.C., he finds that no case against the accused has been made out.
Thus, it is clear that the Magistrate, while trying a warrant cases instituted by means of a complaint, is bound to follow the procedure as prescribed under Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C. and he is not empowered to permit the complainant to withdraw the complaint without doing so. Hence the applicant cannot be permitted to withdraw his complaint.
According to Section 244 Cr.P.C., the accused has to appear before the Magistrate, therefore, the impugned summoning order dated 23.6.2015 which has been issued by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the evidence and statement of the complainant, cannot be quashed.
In view of the above discussion, there does not appear any illegality in the impugned summoning order dated 29.7.2017 and the prayer to quash the aforesaid order is rejected. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 23.6.2015 and 29.7.2017, do not call for any interference by this Court. The instant application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
As all the offences under which the complaint has been filed, are compoundable in nature, the applicant is at liberty to move a proper application before the trial court for compounding of the offences.
Order Date:-20.2.2018-SB