Allahabad High Court
Chandra Bhan Alias Lalla And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:141900 Court No. - 82 AFR Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12982 of 2009 Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Alias Lalla And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Chandra,Sunita Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. As per office report dated 20.08.2024, notice has reportedly been served on opposite party no.2 personally.
2. Heard Sri Akshay Raj Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. In the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed to quash the summoning order dated 20.04.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in Complaint Case No.70 of 2009, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act P.S. Ait, District Jalaun and also to quash the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.70 of 2009 with regard to said matter.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no.2 Lala Ram filed a complaint case with averments that he belongs to scheduled caste category and he was working as a labourer in the field of Munni Babu, who is a co-villager. He was subjected to forced labour, day in and day out. In the intervening night of 17/18.04.2000 at 3:30 hours when opposite party no.2 was taking rest in Khalihan of Munni Babu, he asked him to come and do work whereupon he requested him for being permitted to have rest, then the accused, Munni Babu abused him by caste specific words, thereafter accused, Chandra Bhan alias Lalla, on being exhorted by Munni Babu took licensee gun of Munni Babu and fired at complainant which hit him on thigh and he became injured. Accused, Amar Singh and Kallu were also present there. They subsequently assaulted the complainant by butt of Rifle. The case was reported by his brother at police station but the report was not lodged in proper manner and charge sheet was filed wrongly under Section 338 IPC and that too against accused Chandrabhan @ Lalla only in which accused got himself saved by confessing the offence of Section 338 IPC after paying Rs.1,000/- as fine. The applicant stated that he was suffering from fire arm injuries received on his thigh and unable to walk.
4. He next submitted that on the similar facts F.I.R. was lodged on 14.04.2000 at the instance of one Raghubir, brother of the injured Lala Ram and same was registered vide Crime No. 40 of 2000, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act. However, the case under Section 307 IPC was not found to be made out during investigation and charge sheet was filed under Section 338 IPC against petitioner No.1 only. The said criminal case was decided on the basis of confession against one of the applicants viz Chandrabhan @ Lalla recorded by learned court below for charge under Section 338 IPC. The present complaint case has been filed only to make pressure on the accused persons after conclusion of police case instituted on same set of facts. He lastly submitted that the prosecution in the complaint case is abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made in present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the filing of complaint case after conclusion of police case instituted on same facts, has been duly explained by the complainant/injured in the complaint itself. The impugned summary order is legally and factually sound and just. It needs no interference in present proceedings.
7. From perusal of material on record, it appears that an FIR was lodged initially in the case at the instance of Raghubir son of Zalim Chamar against the accused Lalla @ Chandrabhan Niranjan, Amar Singh, Munni Babu and Kallu. The accused belonged to same family. The FIR was drawn on the basis of written report filed by the informant vide Crime No.40 of 2000 under Sections 307/504/506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, at Police Station Ait, District Jalaun at Orai in which an acquisition was made to the effect that on 17.04.2000 at around 3:30 am accused persons abused and intentionally insulted Lalaram, the real brother of the informant when he was taking rest in the agricultural field of accused persons accused Munni Babu and Chandrabhan Niranjan and when he tried to plead his stand that he was badly tired due to thrashing work and requested the accused persons to refrain from abusing, Munni Babu got enraged and exhorted Lalla @ Chandrabhan Niranjan to kill him. On being exhorted by Munni Babu, Lalla @ Chandrabhan Niranjan fired a shot at Lalaram by a licensed gun of Munni Babu which hit Lalaram and he fell down on earth. The accused persons also abused Lalaram with caste specific words. The incident was witnessed by Krishna Murari Chamar, Kailash and Ravi Shankar who came there on hearing sound of firing. The informant also reached there alongwith the said witnesses and Lalaram was rushed to Jhansi for treatment, thereafter he was referred to Gwalior where he had been admitted.
8. The informant lodged FIR on 19.04.2000 at 22:45 hours after returning from Gwalior. The police investigated the same and recorded statements of the informant and witnesses. During investigation the FIR version was not found reliable and the Investigating Officer concluded that the injured Lalaram was working at the place of accused Munni Babu for last six months. The injured Lalaram stated that when he sat down on being tired of work, on order of Munni Babu, Lala @ Chandrabhan Niranjan fired a shot at him and when he got injured, Munni Babu got him driven by tractor to a doctor at Ait where he was given first aid; he was taken to Jhansi where he was treated for few days, and thereafter he was rushed Gwalior where he was treated for four days. Accused Munni Babu bore the expenses of his treatment. Some witnesses stated to Investigating Officer that in fact two persons Lalaram and one Pratap Bahadur Singh from the side of the accused got injured as firearm kept by Chandrabhan @ Lala went off accidently. At the time of incident, harvesting was closed and Lalaram, Pratap Bahadur Singh and Chandrabhan were sleeping, suddenly the country made pistol possessed by Chandrabhan @ Lalla went off accidently which hit Lalaram on his thigh, and Pratap Bahadur Singh on his hand. The injuries of Lalaram and Pratap Bahadur Singh were not on vital part.
9. The Investigating Officer placed reliance on statements of independent witnesses Pappu Basor, Shiv Ram, Ravi Shankar and Kailash Chamar and concluded that none of the penal sections mentioned in FIR attracted against the accused persons, and complicity of only Chandrabhan @ Lala was found for charge under Section 338 IPC and accordingly chargesheet under Section 338 IPC was filed against Chandrabhan @ Lalla before the court on 20.04.2000. The accused Chandrabhan @ Lalla moved an application on 16.02.2001, expressing his desire to confess the guilt for said charge, which was allowed and statements of accused was recorded by learned Special Judicial Magistrate-II and on the basis of confession he was convicted of charge under Section 338 IPC and sentenced to Rs.1,000/- fine and 20 days’ imprisonment in default, by order dated 16.02.2001 the criminal case arising out of said FIR Crime No.40/2000 P.S. Ait, District Jalaun concluded. The informant Raghubir assailed said order dated 16.02.2001 before court of session by filing a Criminal Revision before the Court of session and said Criminal Revision No.1998 of 2001 was dismissed by Special Judge EC Act, Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 22.11.2001 with observation that no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate while deciding the case on the basis of confession of accused. There is a separate procedure for enhancement of sentence. Any other order in the ends of justice can only be passed under Article 482 Cr.P.C. by Hon’ble High Court and the revision was dismissed with these observations.
10. Consequently the order dated 16.02.2001 passed by learned Magistrate was affirmed by court of session in Criminal Revision. The revisional order has now attained finality, as the informant perused no further remedy in the matter before any higher court.
11. About seven years of passing the above stated revisional order the injured/complainant Lalaram filed a Criminal Complaint before the Court of C.J.M. Jalaun, at Orai on 10.10.2007 against the same accused persons with regard to same incident. The allegations in the FIR lodged at the instance of Raghubir, the brother of the complainant and Criminal Complaint has been filed by the injured Lalaram based on same statement of facts and accusation. In nutshell, it can be said that the FIR lodged earlier and Criminal Complaint lodged after seven years thereof are based on same set of facts, allegations, offence and accused persons. The learned Magistrate recorded statement of complainant Lalaram under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses Smt. Savitri, wife of Lalaram and Ravi Shankar, the brother of Lalaram under Section 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.04.2009 considered the allegations made in the complaint and statement of complainant and the two witnesses recorded in inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoned all the four accused persons after finding a prima facie case made out against them, to face trial for charge under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(X) SC/ST (P.A.)Act.
12. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned summoning order the accused persons have filed present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If we look into the statutory provisions with regard to lodging of FIR and filing of complaint in respect of same offence the procedure is found under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which may be reproduced as under:-
“210. Procedure to be when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.
(1)When in instituted a case otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such enquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2)If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
(3)If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.”
13. On perusal of aforementioned provision it is apparent that subs-section (1) applies where a complaint case is instituted during progress of police investigation in a case and sub-section (3) provides for proceeding the case as a complaint case where police report does not relate to an accused in the complaint case, or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report. In such a situation, the Magistrate consolidates both the cases together and proceed in the matter by observing procedure prescribed for complainant cases. In Session triable case, there is no distinction between a case instituted or a police report or on complaint, so far as trial is concerned and procedure prescribed for trial before the Court of session is applicable for both type of cases after committal of the case by a Magistrate concerned to court of Session for trial.
14. The present case was instituted on the basis of complaint of injured although for altogether different offences in distinction to offence found in chargesheet filed after investigation into said FIR and concluded by order dated 16.02.2001 passed by learned Magistrate on the basis of conviction of chargesheeted accused Chandrabhan @ Lalla for charge under Section 338 IPC and when complaint was filed no police case was pending. The present complaint which has been assailed by the accused persons in present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed after six years and eight months of conclusion of earlier police case based on same accusations.
15. On conclusion of police case by by order of Magistrate on the basis of conviction, sole accused and no plausible explanation has been found in complaint or in statement of the complainant and witnesses for such an inordinate delay. The complainant has stated in complaint itself that he was not aware of proceedings of the court of Magistrate regarding filing of chargesheet under Section 338 IPC.after investigation of case instituted on the basis of investigation carried out in FIR lodged at the instance of his brother Raghubir. He has stated that he came to know about order of learned Magistrate-II regarding closure of case on the basis of conviction under Section 338 IPC. On 06.08.2007 when he filed an application before the Court of Magistrate concerned seeking progress of the case; which is inconceivable as the informant Rabhubir filed a Criminal Revision before the court of session against the order dated 16.02.2001 passed by learned Magistrate without any delay, which was decided by the Court concerned by order dated 22.11.2001 and no interference was made in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate in said police case.
16. After a lapse of period of six years on dismissal of Criminal Revision preferred by the informant who is none other than the real brother of the complainant the present complaint has been filed.
17. This Court is not oblivious of settled proposition of law that even after acceptance of closure report filed by Investigating Officer, after investigation of the case, the informant /aggrieved person can file a criminal complaint before the competent Magistrate.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case Zunaid Vs. State of U.P. and others in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2628-2629 of 2023 observed as under:-
…….11. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options. Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. It may be noted that even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report. As held by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma Vs. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Others, as followed in B. Chandrika Vs. Santhosh and Another, a Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report. No doubt a Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be.
19. However, the facts of present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case in which Hon’ble Supreme Court made above observations, as in the present case the police had not submitted closure report after investigation of the case lodged at the instance of the informant Raghubir and filed chargesheet against one of the named accused persons for charge under Section 338 IPC, which is a minor offence and complicity of other accused persons was not found in the offence. The complaint itself has been filed after lapse of a period of seven years of the conclusion of the case on the basis of police report and subsequent dismissal of revision preferred by the informant against final order passed by learned Magistrate. The revisional order has not been challenged before any superior court by the informant/defacto complainant. In as much as, fact of filing of Criminal Revision by the informant in police case and dismissal of the Revision by court concerned has been concealed in complaint case instituted by the complainant/ respondent No.2.
20. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint was not maintainable after lapse of six years of decision in Criminal Revision preferred against the order of Magistrate dated 16.02.2001.
21. The petitioner/applicants have invoked indulgence of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in this Court. The scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court has been discussed and circumscribed by Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of judicial precedents.
22. The law in regard to inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discussed hereinafter :-
“Inherent Power of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 :-
(I) “Inherent Power” of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., an extraordinary power is with purpose and object of advancement of justice, which is to be exercised “to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C.”, or “to prevent abuse of process of any Court”, or “to secure ends of justice”, making arena of the power very wide, yet it is to be exercised sparingly, with great care and with circumspection, that too in the rarest of rare case.
(II) It is no more res integra that exercise of inherent power could be invoked to even quash a criminal proceeding/First Information Report/complaint /chargesheet, but only when allegation made therein does not constitute ingredients of the offence/offences and /or are frivolous and vexatious on their face, without looking into defence evidence, however such power should not be exercised to stifle or cause sudden death of any legitimate prosecution. Inherent power does not empower the High Court to assume role of a trial court and to embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation, specifically in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy. Similarly quashing of criminal proceedings by assessing the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. at initial stage is nothing but scuttling a full fledged trial.
(III) There can not be any straight jacket formula for regulating the inherent power of this Court, however the Supreme Court has summarised and illustrated some categories in which this power could be exercised in catena of judgments. Some of them are State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd Vs Mohd Sharaful Haque: (2005) 1 SCC 122, Ahmed Ali Quarashi and Anr Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh : 2020 SCC Online SC 107, Joseph Salvaraja A v. State of Gujarat (2011) 7 SCC 59, Sushil Sethi and another Vs The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others (2020) 3 SCC, 240, Priti Saraf and Anr Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr : 2021 SCC Online SC 206. Some categories/ circumstances as illustrations but not exhaustive are : allegations made in FIR / complaint, if are taken at their face value and accepted do not prima facie constitute any offence or are so absurd and inherently improbable to make out any case or no cognizable offence is disclosed against the accused, criminal proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and with a view to spite the accused due to private and personal grudge, or where there is a specific legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or in the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings or when dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, further Courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out.
(IV) In Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra : (2019) 14 SCC 350, the Apex Court has laid emphasis on the principles laid down in two of its previous judgements namely, State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa : 2015 (3) SCC 424 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.: (2006)6 SCC 736 and held that quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only when the complaint does not disclose any offence, or the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive and further clarified that defences available during a trial and facts/aspects whose establishment during the trial may lead to acquittal cannot form the basis of quashing a criminal complaint. The criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature, if the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out in the complaint.
(V) The Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Versus State of Maharashtra and Others : (2020) 10 SCC 118, has categorically held that High Court is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and or no coercive steps either during the investigation or till the final report/ charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing petition under Section 482Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution and even in exceptional cases where High Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out for stay of further investigation,such order has to be with brief reasons, though such orders should not be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically.
(VI) Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. (see Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. versus State of U.P. & Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 484)
(VII) “A careful reading of the complaint, the gist of which we have extracted above would show that none of the ingredients of any of the offences complained against the appellants are made out. Even if all the averments contained in the complaint are taken to be true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against the appellants. Therefore, we do not know how an FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was also filed…..It is too late in the day to seek support from any precedents, for the proposition that if no offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint, the complaint deserves to be quashed.” (See, Wyeth Limited & others vs, State of Bihar & another, Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10730 OF 2018), decided on 11th August, 2022).”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment A.M. Mohan Vs. The State represented by SHO and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 339 (three Judge Bench) considered the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. while deciding the appeal challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras on an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Hon’ble Court observed as under:-
……..9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India 10 Limited and Others after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:
“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few–Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628] , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
24. Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that there is nothing in the words of section 482 Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636].
25. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment Naresh Kumar and another Vs. The State of Karnataka and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 268 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1570 of 2021 observed as under:-
……6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), Apex Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising 8 the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
27. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State and keeping in the light facts and circumstances of the present case and above stated judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court; on the basis of foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that filing of instant complaint case and issuance of summoning order thereon by learned Magistrate amounts to abuse of process of law, as this is tantamount to reopening of a case based on same allegations which has already been concluded on the basis of police report by orders of the Court, around seven years before. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed and impugned summoning order dated 20.04.2009 as well as the entire proceedings in said complaint case are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2024
Atul/Ashish/ –