Allahabad High Court
Vijay Pandey And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:6012
Court No. – 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 41752 of 2023
Applicant :- Vijay Pandey And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar I
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Applicants have filed this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge sheet dated 22.5.2021 filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and summoning order dated 12.11.2021 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C.-I/ Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 29575 of 2021, titled State Vs. Vijay Pandey and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 32 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352, 452, 427, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Balua, District Chandauli and the proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that though there are allegations in the F.I.R. relating to the commission of offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C., but during investigation, no evidence relating to such an offence was found. Learned counsel further submits that not only, the statement of victim/ information is discrepant in respect of the material aspect of the case, but the medical evidence also does not support the version of the complainant/ injured and this makes it clear that applicants have been falsely implicated by the opposite party no.2. He submits that earlier on the basis of the statement of applicant no.4-Ajeet Pandey, a case crime no. 33 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Balua, District Chandauli was registered against the opposite party no.2 (complainant) and five others accused persons, and as a result of this, the opposite party no.2 has falsely implicated the accused applicants. According to him, prosecution of the applicants is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law, therefore, he prays for quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 22.5.2021 as well as the proceedings arising therefrom.
During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel that offences alleged in the impugned charge sheet against the applicants relates to the offence against the human body and the final report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is pending consideration before the trial court as the charges against the applicants have not been framed so far.
After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that final report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is yet to be examined by the trial court, therefore, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., particularly, keeping in view of the nature of the alleged offences. Here, it will be useful to refer the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that if a party can avail alternative remedy according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, in that eventuality the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. The relevant observations read as under :
“13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It has been held by this Court in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] that Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (which corresponds to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and such inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code and therefore where the Magistrate has not applied his mind under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to the merits of the reports and passed order, the High Court ought not to consider a request for quashing the proceedings. In the case of R. P. Kapur (supra) on 10.12.1958, M.L. Sethi lodged a First Information Report against R.P. Kapur and alleged that he and his mother-in-law had committed offences under Sections 420-109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. R.P. Kapur moved the Punjab High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the First Information Report. When the petition of R.P. Kapur was pending in the High Court, the police report was submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the High Court held that no case had been made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and dismissed the petition. R. P. Kapur carried an appeal by way of Special Leave to this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal for inter alia the following reasons:
” In the present case the magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceedings is not at the present stage covered by any specific provision of the Code. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage?”
As we have found in the present case that learned Magistrate had not applied his mind to the merits of the reports filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., we are of the considered opinion that the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., was at an interlocutory stage and was not warranted in the facts of this case.”
Thus, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of this case, no case is made out for interference by way of exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, it shall be open for the applicant to raise all the grounds pleaded in this application, before the trial court at an appropriate stage.
With these observations, the application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.1.2024
P.S.Parihar
