Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6417 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Anarkali And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned summoning order dated 17.1.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, District-Sambhal as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.379 of 2016 under Sections 323, 504, 506 379, 354 IPC pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of the applicants' counsel is that the dispute in question is civil in nature and, therefore, the complaint lodged is bad in the eyes of law. Further submission is that sp,e civil litigations are already going on and the true facts have not been brought before the Court concerned by the complainant. It has also been stated that the applicants and O. P. no.2 are joint tenure holders of agricultural Plot no.198. It is also submitted that an FIR from the side of applicant Tejpal was lodged against O. P. no.2 and others under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC and the present case is a counter blast in reaction, therefore, for all the reasons the present proceedings should be quashed.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The perusal of the complaint in question and the evidence produced before the Court during the course of enquiry under Section 200 & 202 Cr. P. C. discloses the allegation that on 19.4.2015 at about 8 pm, the accused persons which included the applicants also got the crop of wheat cut and loaded, which had been grown up in the field in question. When the complainant went to lodge protest against the same, filthy abuses were hurled and one of the accused brandished a rifle and made the complainant flee from there. Thereafter, accused persons followed him and they barged into his house and made assault upon him and the household articles etc. were destroyed and damaged causing economic loss of about Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. Daughter-in-law of complainant, Smt. Somwati was caught hold of and then after dragging her she was taken inside a room and then an indecent assault was made upon her and apart from committing obscene acts, her clothes were torn away. She raised hue and cry attracting the witnesses on spot and she was somehow saved. Threat to kill was also given, in case, the complainant initiated any proceedings. The allegations made in the complaint gets substantial corroboration from the statements of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, who were examined under Section 200 & 202 Cr. P. C., who are witnesses Jauhari, Somwati and Veerbal respectively. It is apparent from perusal of material produced before the Court that because of dispute that was existing with regard to the field in question, the situation worsened which resulted in acts which constituted several offences. So far as the pendency of some civil litigations is concerned, that only appears to be a background indicating bad blood between the parties. The submissions regarding lodging of an FIR against the complainant and the civil dispute pending in between the parties, is only explaining the motive and backdrop of the events which resulted in the incident that has been reported in the complaint in question. The events or the actions and the acts that have been alleged are not of civil nature and are constituting various culpable offences and it cannot be said that because there was some civil litigations pending, therefore, the criminal offences committed by the accused should not be allowed to prosecute the accused. The contention that the controversy is civil in nature, sometimes gets favour from the Court only where the alleged acts committed by the accused do not constitute the offences or where it appears that though the controversy is essentially civil in nature but the same has been lent deliberately a criminal complexion. The offences in which the applicants have been summoned can hardly be said to be of civil nature. Most of these offences under which the accused have been summoned have nothing civil about them. The relative truth of the allegations cannot be decided at this stage in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
The submissions made by the applicants' counsel calls for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.
This application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Manish Himwan