Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 552 of 2007 Applicant :- Sanjay Parashar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,R.R. Upadhyay
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicants seeking the quashing of impugned charge-sheet in case crime no.271 of 2005, under sections 384, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, now registered as Case No.2253 of 2005 pending before learned C.J.M. Hathras.
List revised. Learned counsel for the applicants is present along with learned A.G.A. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite repeated calls. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further procrastinate the matter. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record and with the assistance of the learned AGA representing the State.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that actually the present case in question was inspired by expressed malice and was in fact in the nature of a counter-blast in order to exert coercive pressure upon the applicants so that they may not pursue the matter which had already been lodged against the complainant. Learned counsel for applicants in this regard has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-1 which is the application moved on behalf of applicant no.1 Sanjay Parashar against several persons including opposite party no.2 Chandra Prakash Chhawara. Submission is that the court below had passed an order for registration of the case under appropriate sections on the application moved on behalf of applicant no.1. Submission is that perusal of the said application shows that there were serious allegations made against complainant and the other co-accused including the allegations of breaking the locks and taking away the goods at the point of pistol and also extending threats of killing. The court has passed the orders on this application on 22.8.2005. Counsel in this regard placed reliance upon Annexure-2 which is a typed copy of the order passed by the court on the application moved on behalf of applicant no.1. Submission is that having come to know about this development the complainant-the opposite party no.2 has contrived to bring this malicious complaint against the applicants in order to exert coercive pressure so that the applicants may not pursue the matter against complainant in right earnest. Argument is that the malice behind the prosecution is apparent on the face of record and therefore the continuation of criminal proceedings will result in abuse of court's process.
Perused the record in the light of submissions made at the bar.
Perusal of the record shows that before lodging of the present complaint against the applicants an application has already been moved against opposite party no.2 which is Annexure-1. It is not difficult to see that the present case in question has been motivated as an act of rancour and vengeance. Further submission is that the allegations are bald in nature and actually no such money has been extorted as has been alleged and the allegation is only of demanding some such money. This court also finds reason to agree with the submission of the counsel for applicants that malice behind the prosecution appears to be the obvious reason why this complaint has been made and the totality of the circumstances are such that the continuation of the proceedings are likely to result in abuse of court's process. In this regard we may usefully keep in perspective the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, in which certain categories have been recognized on the basis of which the criminal proceeding against a certain party or the accused may be quashed. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case as follows:-
"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are 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.
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is 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."
In the considered view of this Court this matter falls in category no.7 mentioned hereinabove. This Court finds reason to hold that the complaint in question is inspired by malice and the version contained therein is full of high improbabilities and the continuation of the proceedings on that basis is likely to result in abuse of court's process, and therefore, the entire proceedings of complaint in question is liable to be quashed.
In this view of the matter this application is allowed and the impugned charge sheet as well as consequential proceedings in question against the accused-applicants stand quashed.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 shiv