Jaiprakash Ruhela vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the chargesheet dated 7.4.2013 and the summoning order dated 10.4.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No. 3165 of 2013, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B IPC and Section 74 of I.T. Act.

The background facts of the case are that the applicant is a property dealer. On 10.2.2013, an FIR was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons alleging that some Pakistani nationals were operating from Pakistan and Saudi Arab and they had established a network with intention to harm the Indian economy and they were also cheating the Indian nationals through cyber crime and the present applicant and other co-accused persons were actively working as the aide of those Pakistani nationals. Police made investigation and submitted the chargesheet against the applicants. Thereafter the Court below summoned the accused applicants to face the trial for the offences mentioned hereinabove.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is not involved in any such activity as alleged in the FIR.

Learned State Counsel argued that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present dispute and on the basis of allegations made in the FIR, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it transpires that specific allegations have been made in the FIR. I am also of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie make out a case against the accused applicants.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 9 SCC 293, has observed that in order to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings raised by an accused under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court should analyze (i) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable; (ii) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint; (iii) whether the material relied upon by the accused cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and (iv) whether the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and hence, would not serve the ends of justice?

In my considered opinion, the answer to none these questions is in affirmative and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings by exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC.

It is also settled law that power under Section 482 CrPC requires great caution in its exercise. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed such scope in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259, and has held that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

In view of the above, there is no force in this criminal miscellaneous application. Consequently, the present C482 petition is dismissed.