Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 85
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 6670 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Reeta Kumari @ Reeta Devi And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Pushkar
Hon’ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
This Crl. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25.6.2019 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2018 (Reeta Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as summoning order dated 5.9.2018 passed by the learned Judicial magistrate, Etah in Complaint Case No. 01 of 2018 (Jagdeesh Prasad VS. Reeta Devi), under section 406 IPC, Police Station Sakeet, District Etah.
List has been revised. Despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition. However, learned AGA. This petition is of year 2019. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further delay the matter. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record and with the assistance of the learned AGA representing the State.
It seems that in order to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to undergo mediation proceedings. The report of Mediation Centre dated 22.01,2020 reveals that the aforesaid attempt could not succeed and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons.
According to learned A.G.A. failure of mediation process seems to be the obvious reason to explain the non appearance of petitioners’ counsel counsel and apparently there is an attempt on behalf of the petitioners to drag the proceedings in order to continue benefit of the interim protection.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon’ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been considered upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal’s case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court’s process either.
The interim order, if any, is vacated.
The petition therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021