Asarfhi Lal and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Vijay Lakshmi, J.—List has been revised but no one is present to press this application on behalf of the applicants even in the revised call. Heard learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceedings and summoning order dated 3.4.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Case No. 65 of 2010, Lata v. Rakesh and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506. I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D.P. Act, Police Station Akrabad, district Aligarh.

Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submits that the applicant had filed a revision against the same impugned order which has already been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 19.2.2011. He has further submitted that vide order dated 30.3.2011 the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad. But the report of Mediation Centre dated 3.9.2011 reveals that the aforesaid attempt could not succeed and failed.

Having heard learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. and considering all the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the application is pending since long, this Court deems it fit to decide the matter on merits.

A perusal of the application and the affidavit filed in support of it shows that all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application relate to disputed questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper to have a pretrial during the proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before the actual trial begins in the court below.

The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court''s decision to proceed against him in a given case is well-settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the factual details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required, while summoning a person to face trial.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and another Shri S.A. Khan, , have recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge-sheet. According to the Apex Court:

"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court 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 F.I.R. 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 un-controverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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."

Testing the facts of the present case on the touch stone of above mentioned guidelines and from a perusal of the complaint, and the material available on record it cannot be said that no prima facie case against the accused is made out. Hence, this Court does not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant as the present case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

The prayer for quashing the same is refused. The application is dismissed accordingly. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused may appear before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today, the court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., , affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .