This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint Case No. 377 of 2019, (Rashid vs. Jamirul Islam and Others),under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bulandshahar as well as for quashing the summoning order dated 12.03.2019 passed in the aforesaid complaint case.
Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The version of complaint lodged by opposite party no. 2 is that applicant Jamirul Islam, his brother Akhtar-Ul-Islam and applicant Rubina have made a proposal to sell the agricultural land situated at town Syana, district Bulandshahar and opposite party no. 2 and his partner agreed to purchase the same for Rs. 3.51 crores and thereafter an agreement to sell was executed by paying Rs. 60 lacs. Later on applicants have given different sums of amount on different dates and in total they have paid Rs. 2.12 crores, but thereafter the venders did not execute the sale deed on one pretext or other and that regarding same issue on 16.02.2019 at 12.00 noon, applicants trespassed into the house of opposite party no. 2, they abused and assaulted him and even tried to press his neck with intention to kill him and they have also threatened that if opposite party no. 2 has demanded his money, they would kill him.
Opposite party no. 2 was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and thereafter four witnesses, namely, Sayyid, Amir, Mohammad Suhail Qureshi and Ishtiyaq Mohammad were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after that applicants have been summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC.
It has been argued by learned counsel for applicants that allegations regarding alleged assault on opposite party no. 2, are false and baseless and that dispute between the parties is regarding property, which is purely civil in nature and that in alleged incident, opposite party no. 2 has not sustained any injury as no medical report is available on record and there is no independent witness of alleged incident. It was submitted that after execution of alleged agreement to sell, opposite party no. 2 has not paid the remaining amount to the venders within the stipulated time and in this regard even a notice was issued to him. It was also submitted that regarding said dispute a civil suit is already pending between the parties. It has further been submitted that one Arshad, who is son of one of the vendee, namely, Mohd. Sayyid has lodged one F.I.R. against the applicants and others on 19.03.2020 regarding same allegations for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 323 IPC and the applicants have approached this Court by filing a criminal misc writ petition no. 15713 of 2020, in which they have been granted an interim protection vide order dated 12.01.2021, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 9 to the application. Learned counsel has submitted that impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations that that impugned summoning order was passed without application of judicial mind and that no prima facie case is disclosed.
Learned A.G.A. has submitted that this case relates to the specific incident of assault, which took place on 16.02.2019 and the material on record makes out a prima facie case against the applicants.
The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 CrPC. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicants, on the basis of which the impugned complaint can be quashed going by the settled law in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. Hence, no case for quashing the impugned proceedings is made out.
Similarly so far as the impugned summoning order is concerned, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned summoning order has been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, interalia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant 482 Cr.P.C. application lacks merit and the same is accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 10.2.2021 Anand