Alok Kumar Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Vijay Lakshmi, J—Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA and perused the record. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. by praying for quashing of the summoning order dated 25.2.2015 passed by the A.C.J.M. Court No. 9, Allahabad, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 136 of 2011, Azaj Ahmad v. Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra and another, under section 406, 323 and 504 I.P.C. P.S. Handia, District Allahabad.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there is no material to connect the applicants with the alleged crime. There is no witness of the occurrence but they have wrongly been summoned without any basis, hence the impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case be quashed.

The record shows that the complainant and the witnesses have been examined under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and they have supported the prosecution story. At the initial stage of summoning only prima-facie case is to be seen. Therefore, looking into the prima-facie evidence on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere.

So far as the inherent powers of the Court are concerned, it has been reiterated by Hon''ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments that while exercising its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by the evidence or not. The High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. ( State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1 : (1989) CriLJ 1005 : (1988) 3 Crimes 822 : (1998) 4 JT 124 : (1988) 2 SCALE 933 : (1988) 4 SCC 655 : (1988) 3 SCR 455 Supp .

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. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960) CriLJ 1239 : (1960) 3 SCR 388 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC) , State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, AIR 1991 SC 1260 : (1991) 2 CompLJ 197 : (1991) CriLJ 1438 : (1991) 2 Crimes 113 : (1991) 2 JT 147 : (1992) 1 SCC 222 Supp : (1991) 2 SCR 1 , and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haq and another 2005 (51) ACC 188 (SC) : 2005 (25) AIC 379, (para 10). The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and she is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

Thus on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the instant application appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed.

The application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, if possible, on the same day by the Courts below in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges'' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., (2005) 1 AWC 416 : (2005) CriLJ 755 : (2005) 1 UPLBEC 155 approved by Hon''ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2009) 7 JT 327 : (2009) 4 SCALE 77 : (2009) 4 SCC 437 : (2009) 4 SCR 1027 : (2009) 4 UJ 1588