Disposed¶36

Ankit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2023A482/22535/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing of summoning order refused; no mini trial or appreciation of evidence at Section 482 stage; disputed questions of fact; prima facie satisfaction on Sections 200/202 CrPC statements; discharge remedy under Section 239 or 227/228 CrPC; Bhajan Lal categories; Satender Kumar Antil bail direction; offences under Sections 323, 380, 452, 504, 506 IPC; incident dated 16.10.2020; Mathura; Allahabad High Court; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer refused; direction issued that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below and moves a bail application within two weeks, it shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law in light of Satender Kumar Antil. ¶36

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Mathura and the entire proceedings of Case No.381 of 2021 (Dinesh Vs. Ankit) under Sections 323, 380, 452, 504, 506 IPC are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +2 more

¶6

Court's answer

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at the Section 482 stage; in the absence of any ground recognised by the Supreme Court justifying quashing, and with no abuse of the court's process shown, the prayer to quash the summoning order and proceedings is refused; the applicant remains free to seek discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. before the trial court.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The learned Magistrate, on the complaint, the complainant's statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of Smt. Rekha (PW-1) and Kavita (PW-2) under Section 202 Cr.P.C., recorded prima facie satisfaction of the incident and of the applicant's complicity; this Court will not conduct a mini trial into the applicant's innocence, which is for the trial court after appreciating the evidence on record.

¶11

Key takeaways

In exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court does not analyse the factual evidence which is to be placed before the trial court; the power is specific and wide, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, and no provision of the Code limits it.ratio¶12
As this Court states on the strength of the Apex Court decisions it cites (R.P. Kapur; Bhajan Lal; Trisuns Chemical Industry; M. Krishnan; Joseph Salvaraj; Arun Bhandari; Anand Kumar Mohatta), exercise of the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 is exceptional, and great care must be taken before scrutinising a complaint/FIR/charge-sheet to scuttle the prosecution at inception.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Dinesh Pathak, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 22535 of 2023, decided 22.8.2023 — Ankit v. State of U.P. and Another: application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 20.09.2022 of the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Mathura and of the entire proceedings of Case No.381 of 2021 (Dinesh Vs. Ankit) under Sections 323, 380, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Farah, District Mathura, arising from an incident of 16.10.2020 in which the applicant was alleged to have barged into the complainant's house and pounded him with an iron rod. Held, quashing prayer refused and application disposed of: the Magistrate, on the complaint, the complainant's Section 200 Cr.P.C. statement and the Section 202 Cr.P.C. statements of Smt. Rekha (PW-1) and Kavita (PW-2), recorded prima facie satisfaction of the incident and the applicant's complicity; the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction neither conducts a mini trial nor analyses factual evidence or resolves disputed questions of fact, the power being exceptional and exercisable only to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of any Court (R.P. Kapur; Bhajan Lal; Trisuns Chemical Industry; M. Krishnan; Joseph Salvaraj; Arun Bhandari; Anand Kumar Mohatta; Gian Singh; Mohd. Allauddin Khan; Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu; Priti Saraf; Arnab Manoranjan Goswami; Neeharika Infrastructure); the applicant's remedy of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. before the trial court remains open. Direction: if the applicant appears/surrenders and moves a bail application within two weeks, it shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law considering Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168993

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22535 of 2023 Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Dwivedi,Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the impugned summoning order dated 20.09.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Mathura as well as entire proceedings of Case No.381 of 2021 (Dinesh Vs. Ankit), under Sections 323, 380, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Mathura.

¶7

Opposite party No.2 has moved a complaint showing the involvement of the present applicant in incident dated 16.10.2020, wherein present applicant allegedly barged into the house of the opposite party No.2 through stairs and pounded him with iron rod inflicting him serious injury. Learned Magistrate, after considering the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., has issued the process against the present applicant under Sections 323, 380, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, vide order impugned dated 20.09.2022, which is under challenge before this Court

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the false and malicious prosecution has been made against the present applicant showing his involvement in the incident dated 16.10.2020. It is further submitted that no corroborating evidence is available on record except the statements of the family members of the opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that due to personal enmity present applicant has falsely been implicated by portraying false story.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that from the face of record, prima facie, the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of the crime cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that the innocence of the present applicant, at this stage, cannot be examined inasmuch as trial court can adjudicate the matter more appropriately after appreciating the evidence to be adduced by the parties. It is next contended that, at this juncture, no ground is made out to entertain the instant application in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, therefore, present application is liable to be rejected being misconceived and devoid of merits .

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

¶11

applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record, it reveals that the learned Magistrate has carefully considered the averment as made in the complain in the light of the statement made by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of the witnesses namely Smt. Rekha (PW-1) and Kavita (PW-2) under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After going through the statement, learned Magistrate has recorded it's prima facie satisfaction qua the occurrence of offence on the date of incident dated 16.10.2022 and the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of the crime. At this juncture, this Court is not expected to conduct mini trial to examine the innocence of the present applicant which can adjudicate upon by the trial court more appropriately after appreciating the evidence on record. Learned counsel for applicant has raised disputed question of fact qua complicity of the applicant in commission of cognizable offence.

¶12

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.

¶13

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/charge-sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception.

¶14

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 :-

¶15

"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."

¶16

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

¶17

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. 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.

¶18

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:

¶19

" 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."

¶20

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:-

¶21

" 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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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

¶25

case against the accused.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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."

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

Having considered the rival submissions advance by learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and the material available on record, in the light of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, no ground made out to consider the merits of the instant case. As such, prayer of quashing as made in instant application is hereby refused.

¶34

Before parting, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bail application if filed by the present applicant may be considered in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 773. In the cited case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given certain guidelines for deciding the bail applications by categorising the offences.

¶35

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I think it appropriate that in case, the present applicant appears/surrenders before the concerned court below and move bail application within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, expeditiously as early as possible.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.

¶37

Order Date :- 22.8.2023 Mini

¶38

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saifee and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fazar Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harish Chandra Shukla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shriram Saroj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shantanu Upadhyay Alias Bhairav Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another