Ram Suchit Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.—The present petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for quashing of the summoning order dated 18.1.2008 and also quashing the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 423 of 2007, Smt. Kamla Devi and Ors. v. Ram Suchit Singh and Ors., pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, under Sections 354, 395, 217, 323 and 504, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ubhavan, District Ballia.

The brief facts of the complaint case is that the complainant, Smt. Kamla Devi and Ors. people were living on a left out land (Gata No. 286) and had also placed the statue of Baba Bhim Rao Ambedkar on the same land. It is further alleged in the complaint that the applicants Ram Suchit Singh and Ors. had an eye on their land and the applicant Ram Suchit Singh, also having his own land nearby (Gata No. 280), had sold his land in the year 2003. After selling his land, Ram Suchit Singh wanted to grab the land, on which the complainant and Ors. people of the Scheduled Castes were living. They were workers of Samajwadi Party. As alleged, on 15.3.2007, at about 11.00 in the night, the applicants, who are named in the complaint along with Ors. named persons armed with rifle, gun, lathi and danda made unlawful assembly and all of a sudden, entered in the house of the complainant and Ors.. The male persons of the basti had gone to look after their field, only ladies and children were present in their houses. All the applicants (accused persons) misbehaved with the ladies, saying "Yeh kahate huye ki sali aaj chamarino ki izzat loot liya jai tatha is jameen se in sabko khader kar kabja kar liya jai jisase ye kahi muh dikhane ke kabil nahi rah jaye ham logon ko nirvastra karna suru kar diya."

The ladies were also beaten by lathi, danda, butt of gun and rifle. Further, it is alleged, that they destroyed the statue of Baba Bhim Rao Ambedkar and took away the same with them. On their raising alarm, several villagers were attracted, who helped the complainant and Ors.. It is also alleged in the complaint that the complainant and Ors. ladies of the basti received several injuries, caused by the applicants and Ors.. There are named witnesses in the complaint. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that Surendra Singh Yadav, Station Officer, P.S. Ubhavan, district Ballia, in order to save the culprits, had lodged a F.I.R. against male members of the basti. The report of complainant was not written, as such, through registered letter, the Superintendent of Police, Ballia was informed and, subsequently, this complaint was filed.

I have heard the contentions of learned Counsel for either parties.

The main contention of learned Counsel for the applicants is that the present complaint has been filed with mala fide intention as a F.I.R. against the male members of the basti had been lodged by Surendra Kumar Singh Yadav, Station Officer, P.S. Ubhavan, district Ballia, on 16.3.2007, against 10 named persons and few unknown persons.

Learned State counsel, Shri Syed Ali Murtaza submits that the evidence of Smt. Kamla Devi recorded u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and of Ors. witnesses recorded u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure corroborates the allegation of the complaint and also the medical report of the injured corroborates with the oral testimony of the witnesses.

Learned Counsel for the State has relied upon the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa and Another, the Hon''ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed the following:

As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are complete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See: Janata Dal etc. v. H. S. Chowdhary and Ors., etc. ; Dr. Raghubir Sharan Vs. The State of Bihar, It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot be itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. (See: Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others, State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, State of Kerala and Others Vs. O.C. Kuttan and Others, State of U.P. Vs. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar (Smt) Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, Badri Narain Upadhyaya (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Jagdish Narain Upadhyaya, and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. 1999 (1) ACR 710 (SC)).

In the circumstances of the present case, as borne out from the record, the complaint is supported by evidence of complainant recorded u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence of the witnesses recorded u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, which is also supported by medical evidence, accordingly, no interference is called for in the present petition filed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure

The factual position highlighted above clearly shows commission of offence and in the legal position enumerated above, the summoning order dated 18.1.2008, passed by the court below and the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 423 of 2007, under Sections 354, 395, 217, 323 and 504, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, P. S. Ubhavan, district Ballia, suffer from no illegality and infirmity. Accordingly, the petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed. However, it is open for the Court concerned to appreciate and evaluate the evidence on record, in accordance with law.