—
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2023:AHC:186181
Court No. – 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 27686 of 2023
Applicant :- Abdul Hak
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Laxmi Narayan Rathour
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Mishra
Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 28.02.2023 and proceedings of Special Case No. 2050 of 2022 (Rubi Vs. Mohd. Inam and others), under Section 392 IPC, Police Station Chaubiya, District Etawah pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5, Etawah.
Basic facts of the case which are required to be stated are that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint dated 01.12.2022 under Section 394 IPC against four persons, namely, Mohd. Inam, Kamil, Mohd. Zahid and present applicant Abdul Hak. Learned Magistrate, after recording statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the applicant under Section 392 IPC vide order dated 28.02.2023, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present application.
Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier on account of matrimonial dispute, wife of applicant filed a Complaint Case No. 188 of 2016 under Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant and his other family members but after a long litigation upto this Court, proceeding of said case was quashed on the basis of compromise vide order dated 25.05.2023 in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 34166 of 2019. Thereafter, elder brother-in-law of the applicant filed complaint against the applicant, which too was dismissed for want of prosecution under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, complaint of this case has been filed by opposite party no. 2 in order to mount pressure upon the applicant. Hence, the impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant submitted that considering the allegations made in the complaint as well as statements of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively, the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, this application is liable to be dismissed.
After having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that apart from statements of complainant and witnesses with regard to incident, there is corroborative material with regard to injury sustained by complainant-Rubi and from perusal of the same, I find that the injuries have been found on her body, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. At the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
This Court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put to an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in complaint and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
This Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicant in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
The relief as sought by the applicant through the instant application is hereby refused.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2023
Shubham