Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10048 of 2023 Applicant :- Raj Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari,Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the complaint dated 25.7.2023 as well as summoning order dated 25.8.2023 passed in complaint case No. 81211/2023, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Ashiana, District Lucknow and the further proceedings in pursuance thereof. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of harassment. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has contended that from the allegation made in the complaint prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. 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 impugned order, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The entire matter pertains to the factual aspect, which cannot be ascertained under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. 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 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. 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. Palankattkar & 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 of summoning order is refused. With the aforesaid observations, this application is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case within six months from today in accordance with law. Order Date :- 13.10.2023 Shravan High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench