Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15758 of 2021 Applicant :- Saurabh Sinha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the file.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 06.02.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 32 of 2019 (Mohd. Sahib Vs. Saurabh Sinha), under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC Court No. 1/ Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been summoned under sections 504, 506 IPC, by Civil Judge (Junior Division/FTC Court No. 1/Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, to face the trial. He further submitted that he has been summoned, whereas, the proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act could have been started in the matter.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that there is prima facie case against the applicant, so proceeding under Section 504, 506 IPC has been initiated, even offence under Section 420 IPC is also made out.
Whether the applicant has beaten opposite party no. 2 Mohd. Sahib or not and whether the applicant hurled abuses, are questions of fact which cannot be determined in this proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C.
In M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2020 SCC Online SC 850, Apex Court has held as under:-
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/ complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule Following other authorities may be cited on the aforesaid point:
R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9.
All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
Accordingly, this Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.9.2021 v.k.updh.