HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 12
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 6400 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Singhasan Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar,Sandeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet No.4 of 2002 dated 17.01.2002 arising out of case crime no. 64 of 2001 under section 406 IPC, P.S. Baskhari District Ambedkar Nagar and non bailable warrant dated 20.7.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Case No. 2670 of 2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner on the basis of false and fabricated facts. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to surrender before the court below and some protection may be granted to him.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the petition.
The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, including ours one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296, Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474, Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781, M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682, State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74.
In Lee Kun Hee and others Vs. State of U.P. and others JT 2012 (2) SC 237, it was reiterated that Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate evidence, if any, available on record. Interference would be justified only when a clear case of such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled interference even at the preliminary stage by High Court may result in causing obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in public interest. It, however, may not be doubted, if on the face of it, either from the first information report or complaint, it is evident that allegation are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair-minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding, in such cases refusal to exercise jurisdiction may equally result in injustice, more particularly, in cases, where the complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.
However, in this matter, after investigation, Police has found a prima facie case against accused and submitted charge-sheet in the Court below. After investigation the police has found a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence by accused which should have tried in a Court of Law. At this stage there is no occasion to look into the question, whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not since that would be a subject matter of trial. No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From perusal of the record, it cannot be said that the cognizable offence is not made out against the petitioner. I do not find any sufficient ground to quash the impugned Charge-Sheet and non bailable warrant order.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner, Ram Singhasan Pandey, surrenders before the court below within four weeks from today and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and in terms of law laid down in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P., 2005; Cr.L.J.755, which has been affirmed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 437. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
It is made clear that in no case the aforesaid period shall be extended and no excuse shall be entertained.
After expiry of the aforesaid period, if the petitioner has not surrendered, then the authorities concerned shall have full liberty to take action against him in accordance with law.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 9.9.2019