Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2627 of 2006 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Saxena & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
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 entire proceedings of Complaint Case No5915 of 2002, "Satish Kumar Agarwal vs. Sunil Kumar Saxena and others", under sections 504, 506 I.P.C. pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Chandausi, District- Moradabad.
Heard Shri Dileep Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
Submission of the counsel is that applicant no.1 is forest guard, applicant no.2 is Van Daroga, applicant no.3 is again a forest guard while applicant no.4 is also Van Daroga whose official duty is to protect the interest of the forest and take action against the people who are poachers and who are illegally indulged into cutting of forest trees. Further submission is that opposite party no.2 is indulged in illegal activities against interest of the forest for the last sixteen years and a number of proceedings have been initiated against him by the forest officials. They tried to put pressure upon the applicants to not to pursue the matter pending against them which the applicants did not agree with and therefore in order to exert coercive pressure on the applicants this frivolous complaint has been lodged as an arm twisting device. Counsel has placed reliance in this regard upon paragraph no.19 of the affidavit of the application and paragraph no.3 of the protest petition filed by the accused applicants before the court below. Submission is that the malice behind the prosecution is apparent on the face of record and it is not difficult to deduce that the only fault of the applicants is that they are performing their duties and did not agree to compromise with their official duties.
Perused the record in the light of submissions made at the bar.
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 continuation of the proceedings on that basis is likely to result in abuse of court's process, and therefore, the entire proceeding of complaint in question is liable to be quashed.
In this view of the matter this application is allowed and the entire proceeding of complaint in question against the accused-applicants stand quashed.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 25.9.2018 shiv