Nanhe vs State of U.P. and Another

Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 25.8.2012 submitted by the police in case crime No. 624 of 2012 whereby the court below has taken cognizance under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party No. 2 has lodged a first information report on 11.7.2012 with frivolous allegations against the applicant and other persons. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant in a perfunctory manner, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and on the basis of which the court below has also taken cognizance in a casual manner on 13.9.2012, whereas no prima facie offence is made out against the applicant.

Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that the applicant is named in the first information report and the prosecution has also shown his complicity. The cognizance has rightly been taken by the concerned Magistrate and it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise his objection at the appropriate stage.

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.

At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, , (ii) State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC (Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, .

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court, that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:- (i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence.

In the result, the prayer for quashing of charge sheet is refused. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage. However, the applicant is directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously keeping in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges'' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., and is also approved by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, after hearing the Public Prosecutor.