Neeraj Verma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

Instant petition is preferred for quashing of charge-sheet and cognizance order dated 14.12.2012, passed in Criminal Case No. 9134 of 2012, State Vs. Iqlaq Singh and anothers, in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar (for short "the case") as well as entire proceedings of the case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The case is based on an FIR lodged on 26.08.2012 by the respondent no.2, the informant. According to FIR, on 25.08.2012, the informant had gone Delhi and when he returned, he found that cash and jewellery from his house had been stolen. In this case, after investigation, police submitted, charge-sheet against the petitioner and others. Against the petitioner, charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 411 and 413 IPC. But when cognizance was taken, it was taken against the petitioner and other co-accused for all the Sections namely, 457, 380, 411 and 413 IPC. It is impugned herein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that petitioner was illegally arrested by Police, on 18.09.2012. The wife of petitioner immediately, informed the Human Rights Commission and Director General of Police, Uttarakhand and also filed a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 33 of 2012, Neeraj Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, in the High Court, in which, on 21.09.2012 order was passed to produce the petitioner. Thereafter, the Police falsely implicated the petitioner and showed that the petitioner was arrested on 21.09.2012 itself. The petitioner was produced before the Magistrate on 22.09.2012, there the petitioner raised all the objections. Subsequent to remand another FIR No. 378 of 2012, under Section 353 IPC was also filed against the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case; petitioner is a Contractor and is a man of repute; he has nothing to do with the offence.

On behalf of the State, it is argued that there are specific averments against the petitioner; petitioner may take all these pleas by filing an application for discharge, but in this petition, these arguments cannot be appreciated.

Factually, it is correct that a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 33 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner in this Court, which was decided, on 03.12.2012 and in that petition, this Court had held that "the said state of affairs clearly discloses, the fact that the corpus is not in illegal custody, and that, there is no dispute that within 24 hours of the arrest of the corpus, he was produced before the appropriate Magistrate." It is also true that another FIR No. 378 of 2012, under Section 358 IPC lodged at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar was quashed by this Court, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 981 of 2012 and connected matters, on 20.11.2012. These all arguments are not directly in issue, but they have been advanced to show that, in fact, Police has falsely implicated the petitioner. But, as stated in Habeas Corpus petition, the claim of the petitioner was not upheld.

State has filed a detailed counter-affidavit and according to the prosecution case, on 03.10.2012 at the instance of the petitioner, thirty silver coins were recovered. What is the effect of this recovery, it may be subject to scrutiny at trial. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"). The law is settled that the scope is quite wide, but much restricted with the guidelines.

In the case of Indian Oil Coprn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summed up the principle, which is as hereunder:-

"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) (1) SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234 , State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045, State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi 1999 (3) SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19 and Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:-

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not."

In case, prima-facie, case is made out, interference is not warranted. Meticulous examination of the evidence is also not required to be done, in these proceedings and it is also a rule that the legitimate prosecution should not be stopped at its threshold. As stated, according to prosecution, thirty silver coins were recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He has been charge-sheeted under Sections 441 and 413 IPC. Although, in cognizance order other sections have been added, but it does not vitiate entire trial at this stage and for this reason, interference cannot be warranted.

Whatever arguments have been advanced, they relate to the factual aspects of the matter. Undoubtedly, petitioner is free to take all the valid defences at the trial, but having considered the case, when the prosecution exhibits that the stolen articles were recovered at the instance of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

The instant petition is dismissed.