Dismissed

Bittu Prasad @ Chandrama and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2023A482/42565/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint filed for the same incident as an existing FIR, the single judge rejected the plea. The court held that contentions regarding false implication were disputed questions of fact and the complaint disclosed an offence, warranting a trial.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of complaint case proceedings rejected.

Bittu Prasad @ Chandrama and 6 Others Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42565 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bittu Prasad @ Chandrama And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Swapnil Kumar,Sudhanshu Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, 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 impugned order dated 12.10.2022 passed by Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-IInd/Judicial Magistrate, Ballia and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.376 of 2021 (Devendra Nath Ram Vs. Bittu Prasad and others), under Sections 147, 148, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶7

As per prosecution, an FIR has been lodged by the informant Manjesh Prasad on 07.05.2021 against four named accused namely, Gulab Chandra, Mansha Devi, Shivnath and Sailesh, alleging therein that on 06.05.2021 at about 3:00 P.M., the pet of the informant went at the door of the applicants and excreted waste material. Due to the aforesaid act of the pet, the aforesaid accused persons came to the house of the informant, after using abusive language assaulted the informant as well as the injured persons with lathi danda and stones, as a result, informant's father Devendra Prasad, mother Shiv Kumari Devi, sisters Soni and Anu sustained injuries. The aforesaid persons were saved by the intervention of the villagers. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 03.06.2021. Subsequently, a complaint has been filed by Devendra Nath Ram on 21.10.2021 against as many as seven persons, who participated in the incident dated 06.05.2021, however, no F.I.R. was lodged against seven persons, who are applicants in the present case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that for the same incident and with the same set of facts a complaint is not maintainable as the same amounts to abuse of process of law.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand, quoting the provision of Section 210 Cr.P.C. submits that a proper application should have

¶10

been moved by the applicants before the concerned Court for clubbing the matter together.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant has given statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has not taken the name of the applicants.

¶12

In reply, learned A.G.A. submits that as per the settled law, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. becomes redundant after filing of the complaint and recording of statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶13

When a specific query was raised to the learned counsel for the applicants regarding the settled position of law as to how reliance can be placed upon statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he could not give any satisfactory reply to the Court.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that there are specific allegations against the applicants in the complaint as well as statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

"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."

¶21

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:-

¶22

"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 Attrocities 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............."

¶23

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 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.

¶24

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 entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 28.2.2023

¶27

Rahul.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bittu Prasad @ Chandrama and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bittu Prasad @ Chandrama and 6 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

Ramautar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mohitlata Sunda and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Gupta Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omveer and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Vs State of U.P. and Another