Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1983 of 2014, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Kemri, District Kemri, District Rampur pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has falsely been prosecuted in the present case with ulterior motive as the opposite party no.2 has filed the complaint with absolutely false and vague allegations which prima facie makes out a dispute relating to money transaction for which the applicant has no concern. Learned court below has proceeded against the applicant in a pedantic manner merely on the basis of statements of the complainant and of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. and passed the summoning order against him to face the trial under the aforesaid offence when no prima facie offence is made out, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
Per contra learned AGA opposed contention of the applicant stating that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter after recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the primitive stage. The applicant will have ample opportunity to raise objection at the appropriate stage before the court below.
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 applicant.
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, 1992 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 the proceeding is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus the same is accordingly dismissed. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
However, the applicant is directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor.
In case the applicant fails to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against him.
Order Date :- 2.8.2016 RU