Ram Sufal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21298

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3742 of 2025

Applicant :- Ram Sufal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

¶7

The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant arising out of Case No.24624/2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sufal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0124 of 2023 under Section 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Malawan, District Fatehpur pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Fatehpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though as per the FIR allegation is that with respect to furnishing of a bond certain amount was to be returned after the time spell so specified therein along with interest thereon however, when the opposite party no.2 approached the applicants for demanding the same, the threats were administered and valuables were also stolen. He further submits that the applicants are innocent as per the statement, sufficient amount has already been returned and no criminal offence is made out.

¶9

Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that the entire arguments so sought to be raised centers around factual aspects, he cannot be gone in to in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 and the paragraph no. 23 culled out the following propositions of law which is enumerated hereinunder:-

¶10

"i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to

¶11

investigate into a cognizable offence;

¶12

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

¶13

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

¶14

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

¶15

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

¶16

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

¶17

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

¶18

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

¶19

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

¶20

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

¶21

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

¶22

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

¶23

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

¶24

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to

¶25

the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

¶26

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

¶27

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

¶29

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

¶30

Learned State Law Officer further submits that already allegation contained in the FIR is also taking up of the valuables without consent of the applicants that too forcefully.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that factual arguments which are being sought to be raised cannot gone into the further proceedings at the stage when the trial is not yet commenced and further the absence of pointing out any jurisdictional error this Court is not provide delve into factual aspect.

¶32

In view of above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands consigned to record .

¶33

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall move discharge application to which learned AGA submits that in case a discharge application is being preferred with the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.

¶34

In the opinion of the Court, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case the discharge application is being preferred then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with law as per the law of the land taking into account the facts and law on the subject.

¶35

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 piyush

¶36

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

Ram Sufal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sufal and 3 Others 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kapil Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Soni vs State of U.P.

Sidhari and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Singh Rathore and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others