Court No. - 46
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7241 of 2006 Applicant :- Lal Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Government Advocate,K.D.Tiwari
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Case called out in the revised call. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicants to address the court. However, the learned A.G.A. is present for the State and perused the record.
The instant petition has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceeding pursuant to the summoning order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Anwala, district Bareilly whereby the applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 436/429 I.P.C.
By order dated 29.6.2006 while issuing notice to the respondent no. 2 further proceeding of the aforesaid case was stayed. The case is pending since 2006, it cannot be allowed to swing years together at the dint of the interim order dated 29.6.2006.
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.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence, which does not suffer from any procedural illegality. The allegation made against the applicants cannot be sifted at this stage.
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 applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of 45 days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.
In case the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against them.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Shahnawaz