Sukhraj Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11610 of 2024 Applicant :- Sukhraj Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalu Prasad Bhatt,Sachin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1.

¶2In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶3The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 of BNSS 2023) has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.1467/2007 : Poonam Singh vs. Rajesh Singh and others, whereby applicant nos.1 to 3 have been summoned for the offence under Section 494 and 109 I.P.C. and applicant no.4 has been summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich and entire proceedings of aforesaid case.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2010 is not in conformity with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned summoning order has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant's version of the incident, as stated in the complaint, is not substantiated by the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, that even prima facie no offence is disclosed against the applicants, despite this fact, they have been summoned to face the trial which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the process of Non Bailable Warrant issued against the applicants is in contravention of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

(2012) 9 SCC 791 and Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial. At this initial stage, the fact of innocence of the applicants can also not be determined.

¶7Learned A.G.A. further submits that the sufÏciency of the material and the test to be applied at the stage of issue of process has been considered in the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2012) 11 SCC 465, wherein it has been reiterated that the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufÏcient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufÏcient to prove and establish the guilt".

¶8Learned A.G.A. has also drawn attention of this Court to a recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI v. Aryan Singh : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, wherein it has been held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.

¶9On the basis of the aforesaid, he submits that no interference with the impugned summoning order and proceedings is warranted at this stage and, therefore, the application u/s 482 being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶10Having heard learned A.G.A. and upon perusal of the records including the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2010, it transpires that the allegations in the complaint have been found to be duly corroborated by the statement made on oath by the complainant during the course of examination under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry made by the learned Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The impugned order has been passed referring the aforesaid statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and only thereafter, impugned summoning order has been passed. Therefore, at this initial stage, no ground for quashing the impugned summoning order and the proceedings of aforesaid case is made out.

¶11In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufÏcient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. In this regard reference may be made to a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal : (2003) 4 SCC

139.

¶12Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd. : (2000) 3 SCC 745 has categorically held that while issuing process, the Magistrate must not anticipate the decision Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry.

¶13In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose : 1963 SCC OnLine SC 4 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that whether evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry.

¶14Having regard to the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the grounds which have been taken to quash the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2010 call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. Therefore, this Court does not find any justification to quash the proceedings against the applicant as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by Hon'ble the Supreme Court which may justify their quashing.

¶15Accordingly, prayer for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2010 and proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby refused.

¶16However, it is needless to mention that in case the applicants apply for bail within a period of four weeks from today, the learned trial Court concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble

Apex

Court

in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin' case (supra), Inder Mohan Goswami's case (supra) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others: MANU/ SC/ 1024/ 2021 by keeping the process

(s), if any, in abeyance for the aforesaid period only.

¶17It is made clear that, in case, the applicants fails to apply for bail before the learned trial court concerned within the stipulated period as aforesaid, the interim protection granted hereinabove shall automatically come to an end without any further reference to this Court and the process (s) which has already been issued against the applicants shall be given effect to in accordance with law.

¶18In view of the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) Order Date :- 18.12.2024 Shubhankar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench