HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 83

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 28863 of 2019

Applicant :- Lokendra And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 628 of 2017 (Rekha Yadav Vs. Lokendra and others), under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Highway, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Mathura.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations. The impugned complaint was time barred, as it was lodged after three years. It was also pointed out that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged FIR against her own brother under Sections 323, Section307, Section506 I.P.C. wherein she has made allegations that her jewellery was taken away by her brother and thus impugned complaint lodged against the applicants is not maintainable. It was further pointed out that opposite party no.2 was blessed with a child on 25.06.2019 and she has mentioned her husband’s name as Ashok Yadav, who is a witness in this case. It has been submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the material on record, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned proceedings or impugned order is not liable to be quashed.

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

In the case of SectionR. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.”

The said decision has also been followed by the Apex Court in the case of SectionKamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Here it would also be pertinent to mention that questions of fact cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Keeping in view the above stated settled position of law, in the instant case perusal of record shows that there are allegations against the applicants that she has entrusted her ‘Stridhan’ and ‘jewellery’ to the applicants but later on she was harassed for dowry and when she demanded her jewellery and dowry articles, the applicants have refused and threatened her. Considering the entire allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

It is apparent from the complaint and material on record a prima facie case is made out against the applicant/s. The case of the applicant does not fall in any of the category enumerated by the Apex Court through various judicial pronouncement for quashing of proceedings. It is well settled that at this stage, this Court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in submission of charge sheet and then eventually in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ingredients constituting the offence is required in order to see whether the proceedings deserves quashing. In case of SectionRupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, SectionRajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and SectionMedchl Chemicals Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. SectionIn State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance.

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.PC.

In view of the aforesaid, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings or impugned order is made out. Hence the prayer for quashing the impugned proceedings and impugned order is refused.

However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of one month from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of one month from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 18.9.2019/T.S.