Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3420 of 2019 Applicant :- Brijendra Kumar Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 65 of 2017(State Vs. Brijendra Kumar Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 1999 under sections 384, 409, 342, 323, 504,218, 193/201 I.P.C. and section 13(2) read with 13 (1) D of the Prevention of Corruption Act P.S. Kotwali Hathras District Hathras(Mahamaya Nagar) and cognizance order dated 24.8.2011 as well as non bailable warrant dated 20.9.2013 pending in the court of Special Judge, anti Corruption ,IInd Meerut.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicants in a perfunctory manner, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and on the basis of which the court below has also taken cognizance in a casual manner, whereas no prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.
Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that the cognizance has rightly been taken by the concerned Magistrate and it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise their objection at the appropriate stage From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants.
At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192 From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence.
In the result, the prayer for quashing of criminal proceeding is refused. Therefore, there is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly dismissed. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
However, in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of sixty days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously keeping in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati & another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and is also approved by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (2) Crimes 4 (S.C.) after hearing the Public Prosecutor.
Since the case is quite old the court below shall proceed with the case expeditiously in accordance with law to bring to book the guilt or innocence of the applicants in the interest of justice which is the command of sub-Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Order Date :- 25.1.2019 Atul kr. sri.