Murari and Others vs State of U.P.and Another

J. C. Gupta, J.—Heard applicant''s Counsel and learned A.G.A.

The applicants have been summoned by the court below as accused persons in case crime No. 163/97 under Sections 147,148, 302 and 201, IPC. It is not disputed that after the registration of the crime, the police investigated the case and chargesheet No. 104/97, dated 5111997 has been submitted in court. A perusal of the material placed on the record indicates that the Investigating Officer interrogated Ram Bahadur who has given an eyewitness account against the applicant. The question arises as to whether chargesheet can be quashed in such circumstances at its inception. In the case of State of Bihar v. Sri Kajendra Agrawalla, JT 1996 (1) SC 601,1996 JIC 363(SC) the Supreme Court held that power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be used in exceptional circumstances and very sparingly and cautiously only where the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would beabuse of process of the court, if such power is not exercised. While examing the case it is not permissible for the Court at that stage either to sift the evidence or appreciate evidence and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. Similarly in Mrs. Rupan Deal Bajaj and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, JT 1995 (7) SC 299,1995 JIC 1155(SC) it has been held by the Apex Court that great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/chargesheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases, it has first to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. At that stage it is not the function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of noncompliance. It was further observed that when Investigating Officer spends considerable time to collect the evidence and places the chargesheet before the Court, further action should not be short circuited by resorting to exercise inherent power to quash the chargesheet. The social stability and order requires to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. This cardinal principle should always be kept in mind before embarking upon exercising inherent powers. In the present case this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. would not embark upon the inquiry whether or not the statement of Ram Bahadur can be believed. It is function of the trial Court. At appropriate stage, the applicants may, therefore, agitate the matter before the Court at the time when? the court takes up the case for framing charges. The power of the Court to discharge an accused stands on a different footing than that of the powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the proceedings at its inception.

With the above reasons, this application has no force and is dismissed.