Dismissed

Deepam Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023A482/4057/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application to quash criminal proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that allegations of fraud giving criminal colour to a pending civil dispute do not justify quashing unless the complaint is frivolous or does not disclose an offence. The case requires trial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the summoning order and entire criminal proceedings is refused; matter rejected.

Deepam Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4057 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Deepam Gupta And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh,Kandarp Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Kandarp Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 20.08.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2175 of 2020 (Smt. Poonam vs. Kunji & Others), under Sections 323, 506 IPC, Police StationSakarar, District-Jhansi, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mauranipur, Jhansi.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed on 20.11.2020 by the opposite party no.2 against as many as six persons including the present applicants with the allegations that the applicants have played fraud by selling her share of property, whereas civil dispute regarding the same was pending. Subsequently, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned. Hence, the present application U/s 482 has been filed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that earlier for the same incident, an NCR has been lodged in which charge sheet has been submitted only against one person, however, for the same incident, the present complaint has been filed against the applicants, which is not maintainable. Therefore, continuation of proceeding of criminal case against them is nothing but an abuse of process of law. He further submits that civil litigation is pending between the parties and the present complaint has been lodged in order to give criminal colour to the civil dispute. Therefore, the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made

¶10

by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that as only one person was chargesheeted in the earlier FIR, however, detailing about the fraud played by the applicants, the present complaint has been lodged by some other person, therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the applicants regarding complaint for the same incident cannot be accepted. He further submits that the allegations made in the complaint go to show that the applicants have played fraud by selling the property by encroaching upon the property belonging to the opposite party no.2. Without waiting for the decision in the case, which was pending and it has been decided on 02.01.2021 marking the shares of opposite party no.2, the applicants have committed fraud with opposite party no.2 as detailed in the complaint. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie , it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

¶12

All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details, which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

¶13

In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint, except, in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court can not look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking.

¶14

The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992

¶15

Suppl.(1) SCC 335 . The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

¶16

"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."

¶17

The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396 . Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

¶18

"39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence ............."

¶19

The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held that though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are wide, however, such powers require care/caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It was clarified that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it was open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

¶20

In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960

¶21

SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.

¶22

In the instant case, perusal of the complaint as well as the statements under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. as a whole, this Court finds it difficult to hold that a case, for quashing of the complaint under Section 482 CrPC, has been made out. Criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC only because the compliant has been lodged by malicious intention. In exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a compliant except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The compliant before the learned Magistrate is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception without further trial.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.

¶24

The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶25

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 Jitendra/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepam Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepam Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Raju @ Rajnikant and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanwarpal@ Lala and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Zubair Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rekha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Bansal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girraj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another