Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 671/2019, Case Crime no. 620/2018, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Aligarh as well as for quashing the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.04.2019 and charge-sheet dated 30.01.2019 submitted in the aforesaid case.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that applicant is working in Airtel company and that alleged SIMs shown recovered from the applicant were actually taken out from the office of applicant. It was further submitted that applicant was not arrested by the police at the alleged spot, rather he was apprehended by the police two days prior and he was falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has submitted that F.I.R. of impugned case has been lodged by making false and baseless allegations and that no case is made out against the applicant.It was further submitted that impugned summoning order dated 23.04.2019 has been passed on a printed proforma, which clearly indicates that impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel lastly submitted that prima facie, no case is made out against the applicant and thus, proceedings and impugned order are liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that in view of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie, case is made out against the applicant. However it has not been disputed that summoning/cognizance order has been passed on a printed proforma.
So far as question of quashing of charge-sheet and proceedings are concerned, it 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 judgement 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 State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of malafides of the informant are of secondary importance.
In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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 malafide 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.
Considering the material on record and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of cases including R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others, reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516, Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the prayer for quashing of impugned proceedings of the case is hereby, refused.
So far as the impugned cognizance order dated 23.04.2019 is concerned, perusal of record shows that it has been passed on photocopy of a printed proforma and merely details of case like Case Number, Name of Accused, Sections, Police Station, Crime Number and Next Date of Listing were filled in the said proforma. It is well settled that cognizance order has to be passed after considering relevant material and showing appropriate reasons. Thus, it appears that this order has been passed in a mechanical way without applying the judicial mind.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the law laid down in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432, Basasudin and others Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (1) JIC, 335 All, Abdul Rashid and others Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (3) JIC, 7661 All, the impugned cognizance/summoning order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 23.04.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Aligarh is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the Court below to pass the order on cognizance and summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Anand