Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 254 of 2021 Applicant :- Swaminath Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhijeet Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.10.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No.3, Ballia in Criminal Revision No.210 of 2019 (Hareram Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 31.08.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, District Ballia in Complaint Case No. 1032 of 2018 (Babban Gaud Vs. Hareram and others), under Sections 452, 380 of IPC, Police Station Bansdeeh, District Ballia.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations. Even as per complainant, he has no enmity with applicant and that no specific role was assigned to the applicant. It was submitted that in view of the facts of the matter no prima facie case is disclosed against applicant and thus, the impugned orders are not sustainable.
Perusal of record shows that the respondent no.2 has filed a complaint against applicant and co-accused persons making various allegations and that thereafter statement of applicant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses namely Manjhariya and Hareram were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and that applicant and co-accused were summoned vide order dated 31.08.2019. The said summoning order was challenged in revision before the Session Court but the revision was dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2020.
It is well settled that at the stage of summoning only it is to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not. If after examining the complainant and witnesses, Magistrate is satisfied that there is ground to proceed with the complaint, he can issue process by way of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. At this stage a mini trial cannot be held and that enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is limited only to ascertain true or false allegations made in the complaint and whether on the material placed by complainant a prima facie case was made out for summoning of accused or not.
In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and 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 instant case, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned summoning order has been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. Similarly, no illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction could be shown in impugned order dated 03.10.2020 passed by revisional Court. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, interalia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the prayer as made above, is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter and impact of Covid-19 Pandemic, it is directed that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within a period of 45 days from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicant surrenders before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed off finally.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 Mohit