Allahabad High Court
Yashpal And 2 Others vs State Of Up And Another on 3 February, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
Bench: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3032 of 2020 Applicant :- Yashpal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.
2. Applicants Yashpal. Vikas and Subhash have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer :-
"to quash the entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 10.08.2018 and cognizance order dated 23.07.2019 filed in Criminal Case No.207/9 of 2019 (State Vs. Subhash Chandra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.211 of 2018 under Section 308, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Rajpura, District- Bheem Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandausi."
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have committed no offence. No case is made out under Section 308 I.P.C.. Investigating Officer did not collected proper evidence. This is a counter blast case. Victim has not been medically examined by the panel of the Doctors. As per injury report of injured Rahul, all the injuries found on his person hard and blunt object and simple in nature. He showed some document and statement in support of his contentions.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of application and submitted that as per supplementary report of victim Fracture temporal parietal bone and injury was found grevious in nature. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that applicants have committed crime. Investigating Officer rightly collected the evidence and finding sufficient evidence against accused submitted the charge-sheet. There is no illegality or irregularities in submitting the charge-sheet.
5. Brief facts of the case which need to be noted for disposal of present case are:-
On 12.06.2018 at about 08.30 P.M. accused Yaspal, Vikash and Subhash started abusing him. When he objected to abuse, all accused persons started beating him with lathi and danda causing serious head injury. Incident was witness by Nauvatram and Kaushal who saved him. Accused persons ran away extending thread to kill him. On the basis of medical report of victim, case was converted into the aforesaid section. Matter was investigated and Investigating Officer who collected the evidence and found sufficient evidence and submitted charge-sheet against the accused applicant which is under challenge in the present application.
6. As per injury report of injured Rahul three injuries were found on his person out of them one Traumatic swelling on the left side of skull injury was kept under observation and two others contusions.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the records.
8. Before I enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in the High Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
9. It is settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
10. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not pre-empt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (See : State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74.
11. In Anil Arya v. State of U.P. and Others, Criminal Revision No. 1216 of 2005, decided on 09.09.2016, this Court held as under :-
"Whether evidence is correct or not or credible enough or not to sustain conviction and punishment is a matter which would be seen after revisionist put in appearance, lead evidence and thereafter Trial Court examine the entire evidence and record its finding thereon, but at the stage of summoning of revisionist on the basis of aforesaid statement in Trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the probable defence of accused summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be examined for the first time in a revisional jurisdiction by this Court."
12. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, 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 :-
"12. 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.
13. 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.
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."
13. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Court has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although in the above case Court was considering the power of the High Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR, the case arose out of an FIR registered under Section 161, 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Court elaborately considered the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements of Court, Court enumerated certain Categories of cases by way of illustration where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
14. From the perusal of allegations made in the F.I.R. and evidence collected by I.O. during investigation, it is not a case of grave injustice. Learned counsel for applicants could not show any irregularity and illegality to investigation.
15. The allegation levelled against them can be adjudicated only after the evidence and truthfulness of allegation cannot be considered in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and trial must go on.
16. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, allegation made in F.I.R., injury report of victim and legal preposition discussed herein before, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.2.2020 Krishna