Disposed

Prabhat Kumar Bajpaaye and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Sectt. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2022/360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and summoning order. The counsel withdrew the merit petition but sought directions for expeditious bail hearing. The court granted leave to surrender and application for bail and disposed of the matter without specific interim directions beyond standard follow-up procedures.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to surrender and move bail application; the application for quashing was disposed of.

Prabhat Kumar Bajpaaye and 3 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 35

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 360 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Bajpaaye And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Sectt. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Dinesh Chandra Tewari, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Prem Prakash, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of the entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated 02.03.2021, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No.2241 of 2021; State Vs. Subhash Chandra and others, under Section 308, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich arising out of Charge Sheet No.1 dated 18.01.2020 bearing Case Crime No.3/2020, under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., on the ground that the applicants have been implicated falsely.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations made against the applicants and has only to examine whether on the basis of the allegations made and material collected during investigation, the offences are made out against the applicants or not.

¶8

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 has laid down certain guidelines for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the following words:

¶9

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,

¶10

clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

¶11

a.1 Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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.

¶12

a.2 Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶13

a.3 Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶14

a.4 Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶15

a.5 Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶16

a.6 Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶17

a.7 Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is 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."

¶18

After laying down the principles for exercise of the discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to add a word of caution in the following words: -

¶19

"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

¶20

The expression "rarest of rare cases" used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal has been explained in Google India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162 in the following words: -

¶21

"43. As to what is the scope of the expression "rarest of rare cases" indicated in para 103, we may only refer to the judgment of this Court in Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B.,(2010) 6 SCC 243 wherein the law laid down by a Bench of three Judges in Som Mittal (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574 has been referred to : (Jeffrey J. Diermeier case(2010) 6 SCC 243, SCC p. 252, para 23)

¶22

"23. The purport of the expression "rarest of rare cases", to which reference was made by Shri Venugopal, has been explained recently in Som Mittal (2) v. State of Karnataka(2008) 3 SCC 574. Speaking for a Bench of three Judges, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice said : (SCC pp. 580-81, para 9)

¶23

''9. When the words "rarest of rare cases" are used after the words "sparingly and with circumspection" while describing the scope of Section 482, those words merely emphasise and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words "sparingly and with circumspection". They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression "rarest of rare cases" is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasise that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection.'"

¶24

In N. Soundaram v. P.K. Pounraj, (2014) 10 SCC 616 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to explain the principles governing exercise of power under Section 482 in the following manner: -

¶25

"13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. [See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.] The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. [See MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (1983) 1 SCC 1.] An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora (2013) 10 SCC 581.]

¶26

In Kaptan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; (2021) 9 SCC 35 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducing the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier pronouncements in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujrat; (2018) 3 SCC 104 in which it was held that "in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the Investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an Appellate Court. It is further observed and held that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the Investigating Authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra; (2019) 18 SCC 191 after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra), it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in section itself. It is further observed

¶27

that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

¶28

Confronted with the aforesaid legal position, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicant may be permitted to surrender and move an application, before the court concerned seeking bail and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶29

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of " Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.; 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.; 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.; MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail application should be decided, expeditiously.

¶30

In the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) No. (S) 1 of 2017 In RE: To issue certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vide its judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 has observed the common deficiencies which occurred in the proceedings of the criminal cases and approved "The Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021" which is the part of the judgment in Chapter V Rule 17 of aforesaid Rules that the application for bail in non-bailable cases must ordinarily be disposed off within a period of 3 to 7 days from the date of first hearing. If the application is not disposed off within such period, the Presiding Officer shall furnish reasons thereof in the order itself.

¶31

Further, as the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.

¶32

It is trite to say that any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts and there is no need for issuance of any separate direction to the Court below to follow the law

¶33

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case, the applicant surrenders and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered by the learned Court below, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶34

The application is disposed off .

¶35

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and the computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶36

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶37

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶38

Order Date :- 1.2.2022 Ram.

Prabhat Kumar Bajpaaye and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Sectt. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Kumar Bajpaaye and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Sectt. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Secy and Another

Liyaqat Ali Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru Addt Chief Secy Govt of U.P. Civil Secy and Another

Mahendra Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Mohd. Jamal Ahmad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Pheran Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and Another