Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17347 of 2020 Applicant :- Raghvendra And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Yadav,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 09.09.2020 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D./J.M.), Court No.3, Sonbhadra in Case No. 4505 of 2020 (Ramnath Dubey Vs. Raghvendra and others), Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra, whereby applicants have been summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.
It has been argued by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged disputed land belongs to family of applicants and that the respondent has concocted a false story with intention to grab the land of applicants. The respondent no.2 has sustained merely simple injuries. Learned counsel further submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants.
Learned AGA has opposed the application and argued that the respondent no.2 has sustained injuries in the alleged incident and his version is supported by witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thus, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicants.
In the instant matter, the only prayer of applicant is to quash the above stated impugned summoning order. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning only it is to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not. 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 prosecution 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.
Considering the averments of complaint, statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case for summoning is made out. It may also be stated 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.
Accordingly, the prayer as made above, is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter and impact of Covid-19 Pandemic, it is directed that in case applicants appear and surrender before the Court below within a period of 45 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
The instant application is disposed off with aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Mohit