Shakir Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the records. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1189 of 2012 in case crime No. 530 of 2012, (State of U.P. Vs. Shakir Ali) under Sections 353, 504 and 506 I.P.C. whereby cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on 15.12.2012 in pursuance of the charge sheet No. 220 of 15.12.2012.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that frivolous first information report has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 with the allegation that the applicant and one other person had obstructed the official work created hindrance by entering into the office of the opposite party no. 2 pressurizing him to issue receipt book for membership of their own men for the election of Sahkari Samiti and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. The first information report was registered under Sections 353, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code as case Crime No. 530 of 2012 at police station Azeem Nagar, district Rampur and from the perusal of the first information report no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The witnesses have been examined, who do not corroborate the prosecution case. The charge sheet has been submitted on the basis of perfunctory investigation and the court below has also taken cognizance in a routine manner.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that from the perusal of the first information report and statements of the witnesses prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant after collecting clinching material by the investigating officer. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise objection at the appropriate stage, hence the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is not liable to be accepted.

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and from the perusal of the allegations made in the first information report and the statements of the witnesses it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding at its inception would tantamount to throttle the legitimate prosecution.

At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material place on record only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, , State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, .

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. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, 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 for quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. Hence the prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused.

However, the applicant is directed to appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the prayer for bail shall be considered and decided keeping in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of application for bail, which ever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

In case the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him in accordance with law. With these observations the petition is disposed of.