1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|12 October, 2018


Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35515 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anki Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under 482 Cr. P.C. has been moved seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 9.6.2018 and cognizance order dated 13.8.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3398 of 2018 (State Vs. Rajesh Srivastava), arising out of Case Crime No. 1909 of 2017, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as no offence u/s 406 IPC is made out againt the applicant on the basis of allegation made in the F.I.R.. He further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in a routine manner. If the proceedings are continue that would amount to abuse of process of law.
The learned A.G.A. has vehementally opposed the quashing of the proceedings.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire material available on record, this court has to see as to whether the applicant has made out a case to quash the proceedings in the above mentioned case.
Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, this Court deems it appropriate to have a thorough look at Section 482 Cr. P.C., which reads as under:
"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of injustice."
"10. ........
This court would like to rely upon the interpretation of this Section made in Rishi Pal Singh vs State of U.P., (2014) 7 SCC 215 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is as follows :
A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr. P.C. makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this Section is to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straitjacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C..
11. This court in Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269, has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and how cautious and careful the approach of the courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from the judgment, which reads: (SCC p. 272, Para 2) "2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge- sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as the rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge- sheet on the face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount".
12. This court in a plethora of judgements has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the courts under Section 482 Cr. P.C.. In State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 this court has listed the categories of cases when the power under sections 482 can be exercised by the court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this court in (1) CBI vs Duncans Argo Industries Ltd, (1996) 5 SCC 591, (2) Rajesh Bajaj vs the State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 3 SCC 259, and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd observed that:
The power under sections 482 of the court should be used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of prosecution would lead to abuse of process of court, the power under section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed.
Also see Om Prakash vs State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72, SCC p. 95, Para 43.
13. What emerges from the above judgements is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact."
In view of above discussion, this court has come to an irresistible conclusion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant for commission of the alleged offence under the aforementioned section is not an abuse of process of law. On consideration of allegations made in the case it is found by the court below that the allegations were supported by the prosecution witnesses and necessary ingredients of offence were made out, therefore the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant, does not not suffer from any lacuna and the prosecution could not be held to be vexatious or oppressive.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018 A.P. Pandey
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U P And Another


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

12 October, 2018
  • Dinesh Kumar Singh I
  • Ravindra Prakash Srivastava