Court No. - 48
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2793 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nandlal Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the summoning order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) 2nd/Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, revisional order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Revision No.29 of 2017 (Nandlal Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.995 of 2016 (Nar Singh vs. Nandlal Singh and others), u/s 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Chunar, District-Mirzapur.
Heard petitioners' counsel as well as learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
All the contentions raised by the petitioners' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The case of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430, (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The ambit and scope of interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction has its own constraints and limitations. In fact even while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The submissions made by the petitioners' counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the petitioner arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. It appears even more difficult to bring into application Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the benefit of the petitioner in the facts of the present case which hardly call for invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The order passed by revisional court also does not suffer from any such infirmity or illegality which may call for any interference by this court as the same is well substantiated with sound reasonings.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned orders or the proceedings under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either. No breach of any constitutional right is perceptible. No good ground to invoke Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application, keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
It is clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018/M. Kumar