Dismissed

Rakesh Kannaujiya Alias Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2023A482/6557/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging false implication. The High Court held that the matter involved disputed questions of fact and allegations did not disclose that the complaints were frivolous or did not disclose an offence.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case is refused.

Rakesh Kannaujiya Alias Rakesh Kumar and 2… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98319

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6557 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rakesh Kannaujiya Alias Rakesh Kumar And 2 Others

¶5

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Om Prakash Kannaujia

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present application has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 788 of 2021 (Vishal Vs. Rakesh and others), under sections 323, 325, 427, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur as well as summoning order dated 18.08.2022 and B.W. order dated 10.01.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court No. 12, Jaunpur pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Court 12, Jaunpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case only for the purpose of harassment. He further submits that for the incident dated 12.05.2020 an FIR has been lodged from the side of the applicants and for the same incident an NCR was also been lodged by opposite party no. 2, however, after passage of nearly one year, the present complaint has been lodged for the same incident, manipulating the injury report and name of some other persons have also been included. He further submits that opposite party no. 2 has not disclosed about the fact that as to what has been the fate of NCR which has been registered for the same incident, therefore, the continuance of proceedings

¶11

amounts to abuse of process of law and the same may be quashed.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submits that for the same incident dated 12.05.2020, cases have been lodged from both side, it cannot be said that no incident took place. He further submits that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.

¶13

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

¶14

All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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:-

¶18

"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."

¶19

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)

¶20

Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "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

¶21

except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence..........…"

¶22

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.

¶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 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 :- 8.5.2023 Arti

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kannaujiya Alias Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kannaujiya Alias Rakesh Kumar and 2 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

Smt. Shahana and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Kalawati and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Minakshi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Another