Court No. - 54
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21820 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt Savitri And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceeding pursuant to the charge sheet no.209 of 2018, dated 6.7.2018 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicants on 21.8.2018 in Criminal Case No.1036 of 2018 (State Vs. Savitri & others) arising out of case crime no.217 of 2018, under Sections 379,427,447,504,506 IPC, P.S. Bhojpur, District Moradabad pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwara, Moradabad.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicants in perfunctory manner and the court below has taken cognizance of the offence in a pedantic manner without applying judicious mind when no prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.
Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the applicants and the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the applicants do not deserve any indulgence.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants.
At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus the same is accordingly dismissed. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
However, the applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor.
The applicant no. 1 Smt. Savitri shall be released on interim bail till her regular bail application is not decided.
In case the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against them.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 M. Tariq