Disposed

Sanchit Alias Anshul v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023A482/18930/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings based on alleged compromise turned back to a false prosecution was disposed of without quashing. The Court held that disputed facts and evidentiary issues must be tried by the trial court and do not justify interfering with criminal proceedings at this stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sanchit Alias Anshul Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168405

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18930 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanchit Alias Anshul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.867 of 2016 (Suarabh Gupta Vs. Anshul @ Ankit) arising out of Case Crime No.1436 of 2011, under Sections 279, 337, 427, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

¶8

Opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR, being Case Crime No.1021 of 2011 dated 13.8.2011, levelling allegations against the present applicant that present applicant was rashly and negligently driving his vehicle and rammed into the vehicle of the first informant which causes damage to his vehicle.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that before submission of police report both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and made compromise on the same date i.e. 13.08.2011. Police has submitted the final report in the aforesaid matter. However, after three years of the incident first informant has filed protest petition dated 07.10.2014 assailing the final report report No.956 of 2011 dated 12.11.2011. In the aforesaid matter order was passed for further investigation, consequently, charge sheet has been submitted against the present applicant inculpating for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 427 and 506 I.P.C. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the compromise dated 13.8.2011 present applicant has repair the vehicle of the first informant. However, at subsequent stage, false protest petition has been filed by the first informant. It is further submitted that false and malicious prosecution has been instituted against the present applicant despite the fact that he has fulfilled all the conditions of

¶10

the compromise dated 13.8.2011. It is further submitted that no case is made out against the present applicant for the offence as mentioned in the charge sheet dated 28.7.2015.

¶11

Per contra learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submission as raised by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that, prima facie, complicity of the present applicant in the commission of cognizable offence cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that the first informant has articulated his plight in the protest petition which has rightly been entertained by court concerned and passed order for reinvestigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It is further contended that after due investigation Investigating Officer has rightly indicted present applicant for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 427 and 506 I.P.C. It is next contended that at this juncture innocence of the present applicant cannot be conferred which can be adjudicated upon by the trial court more appropriately after considering the evidence adduced by the parties. No ground is made out to warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, instant application liable to be rejected being misconceived and devoid on merits.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perusal of record, it reveals that factum of accident is admitted to both the parties which is also manifested in the light of compromise took place between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to assail the legality of the protest petition which has been filed on behalf of the first informant. Learned court concerned has already taken cognizance and issued summons on the basis of charge sheet, therefore, at this juncture defence of the accused cannot be entertained which is a subject matter of trial. Even otherwise, perusal of protest petition reveals that opposite party No.2 has articulated plight he suffered owing to the alleged compromise took place under presser in Case Crime No.1021 of 2011. It appears, prima facie, that present applicant has played mischievous after compromise dated 13.8.2011. Investigating Officer has arraigned the present applicant in subsequent police report u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C., after conducting enquiry, along the material collected during the investigation, which are, prima facie, sufficient to inculpate the present applicant in cognizable offence.

¶13

Record reveals that learned counsel for the applicant has raised disputed question of fact qua involvement of present applicant in the incident in question.

¶14

In exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to analyze the factual evidence which is to be placed before the trial court. The power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very specific and wide to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. No provision of this Code is deemed to limit or effect such inherent power of the High Court.

¶15

It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686 3; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. : (2001) 8 SCC 645; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC 706 that exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/chargesheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception.

¶16

In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in Paragraph 61 which is quoted herein below :-

¶17

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR or a complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline en-grafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court."

¶18

In Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018, Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and others, 2019 (6) SCC 107, the Apex Court has held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidences of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because where there are contradictions or the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidences and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial, when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties.

¶19

The same view has also been reiterated in judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10762 of 2018, Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another.

¶20

In the case of Priti Saraf & anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. Criminal Appeal No(s). 296 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6364 of 2019] (judgment dated March 10, 2021) : 2021 SCC Online SC 206 the Apex Court while considering the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as follows:

¶21

" 23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirely shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/ FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/chargesheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record.

¶22

The scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC has been examined in detail by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335) . The relevant para is mentioned hereunder:-

¶23

" 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, 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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials,

¶26

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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(6) Where there is an express legal bur engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code on the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶31

(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 10 private and personal grudge."

¶32

It has been further elucidated recently by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 964 where jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC has been analysed at great length.

¶33

Further, in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, Full Bench of the Apex Court while considering the powers of quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India has illustrated the circumstances under which quashing of a criminal case can be done and/or interim order can be granted.

¶34

Therefore, the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. In absence of any of the grounds

¶35

recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶36

However, it is provided that in case applicants move an appropriate application for discharge along with a certified copy of this order before the concerned Court below, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court below as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court.

¶37

If the concerned Court feels persuaded to have the view that accused ought not to have been summoned and charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the Court below holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.

¶38

With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of .

¶39

Order Date :- 17.8.2023 Md Faisal

¶40

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanchit Alias Anshul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sanchit Alias Anshul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rajeshwari Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Azad Alil and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haseen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sufian Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Manju Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others