JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.8.2000 and also the proceedings initiated on the basis of case Crime No. 43 of 2000, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Saharanpur, State of U.P. v. Imran and Ors. in Case No. 871 of 2000. As the allegations against the applicants are tactual in nature, it can not be adjudicated in this application and alter going through the application and other documents filed along with application., no good ground for quashing the criminal proceedings has been made out. It is settled principle of law that this Court in exercise of inherent powers can not throttle the trial unless and until it is one of those rarest, of the rare cases, where bare reading of the F.I.R. or charge sheet and she documents available along with charge sheet do not prima facie out any offence against the applicants. The Apex Court has ruled in catena of decision. In the case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1960, S.C., 866, State of Haryana and Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, 1991 (28) A.C.C 111 (S.C.), Union of India v. Prakash Hinduja and Anr., 2003 (47) A.C.C. 433, where the legal position has clearly been settled that when a prosecution initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie established the offence and only when the court is of the opinion that that chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue, the proceedings could be quashed. In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2002 (44) A.C.C. 168 it has been ruled that quashing of the criminal proceeding is an exception than a rule. Therefore exercise of power should be consistent with the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and should be limited to very extreme cases and must be treated as rarest of the rare cases so as not to scuttle the prosecution.
3. In the circumstances, this application is dismissed and the interim order stands vacated.
4. However, the trial court is directed to conclude he trial expeditiously. Counsel for the applicants has stated that since the proceedings in the present case was stayed for a long time after the present application was filed. It will be proper that if the bail application of the applicants is disposed of expediliously I am in agreement with this submission of the counsel for the applicants and the trial court is directed to dispose of the bail application of the applicants expeditiously, if possible on the same day.
5. Thereafter the trial court may permit the applicants to appear through counsel and raise their objections to the initiation of trial proceedings against them at the stage of framing of charges. This relief is being granted up to the stage of framing of charges provided the applicants after securing bail give an undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial court that (a) their counsel will remain present on their behalf and represent them on each date, (b) they will not raise any objection as to them being the actual persons who are facing trial, (c) they do not object to the evidence being recorded in their absence, (d) they undertake to be present before the Court whenever called upon to do so at any stage.
6. These undertakings are being taken, in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Industries Limited v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited (2001) Cri. L.J. 4250.
7. This relief of appearing through counsel on the terms and conditions mentioned above will only be available to UK applicants provided they appear within one month from the date of this order and obtain bail in the court below.