Back
2005 Supreme(All) 1059
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mukesh son of Bal Mukund, Heera Lal son of Ratan Singh and Guddu son of Late
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 5840 of 2005
Decided On : 03 June 2005
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 5840 Of 2005
GAURAV SHARMA,
The accused are entitled only to receive the copies of the documents which are being relied upon by the prosecution against them, and the inherent power of quashing the criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Quashing of Proceedings - Sections 392, 82 of Cr. P. C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 and the right to information under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The court also examined the purpose and limitations of maintaining a case diary under Section 172 Cr. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings against them and a writ of mandamus to provide a copy of the case diary and other proceedings related to them. The petitioners alleged that they were falsely implicated in a criminal case and that their right to information under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India was violated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were informed of the case and the offence they were wanted for, and therefore, their right to information was not violated. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the relief sought by the petitioners could not be granted as it would be in contravention of the statute itself.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the right to information of the accused, the quashing of proceedings, and the limitations of maintaining a case diary under Section 172 Cr. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused cannot claim the right to know each and every thing in respect of the investigation and that the accused are entitled only to receive the copies of the documents which are being relied upon by the prosecution against them. The court also emphasized that the inherent power of quashing the criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court requested the lower court to proceed in accordance with the law for bail application if the petitioners surrender before the Court.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed with prayer that a Writ, order or direction be issued in the nature of certiorari, commanding the respondents to send the entire record and the proceedings against the petitioners, for quashing the same, as well as for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide a copy of the case diary and other proceedings related to petitioners, in order to enable them to defend their case.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that a First Information Report (hereinafter called f. I. R. ) in Case crime No. 60 of 2005, under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called i. P. C)was lodged with the Police Station Saidabad, District Hathras (Mahamayanagar) on 13. 3. 2005. In the F. I. R. , two persons were named as accused. The names of the petitioners do not find mention in the said F. I. R. In pursuance of the same, investigation commenced, and it appears that during investigation, the names of the petitioners were also revealed. Accordingly, the police is trying to apprehend the petitioners. In such an eventuality, the Investigating Officer filed an application in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Saidabad District Hathras (Mahamayanagar)for permission to proceed under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 (hereinafter called cr. P. C), and that application has been allowed vide order dated 6th May, 2005. Hence this petition for quashing all the proceedings.
( 3 ) SHRI Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a fit case where this Court should issue a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings as petitioners have a right to information as for what offence and in what case they are wanted. The reputation of the petitioners is at stake and that itself is sufficient ground for interference by the writ Court. Entire proceedings against the petitioners are in violation of the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 or the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court should quash the entire proceedings after calling the record.
( 4 ) IN support of his contention, the earned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon a large number of judgments including in re Maura Limaye and Ors. AIR 1969 SC 1014; vimal Kishore Mehrotra v. State of U. P. and Anr. , AIR 1956 All 56; The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh and Anr. AIR 1953 SC 10; Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1996 AWC 469; Rama Kant v. State, 1988 AWC 1354; Vikram v. The State, 1996 Cr. L. J. 1536; ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. 1998 AWC 604; and State of Bihar v. Lal Krishha Advanl and Ors. , AIR 2003 SC 3357.
( 5 ) THE writ petition has been filed submitting that petitioners have falsely been enroped in the crime excluding the names of the real Accused by the Investing Officer after taking illegal gratification from them; on 6. 5,2005, Judicial Magistrate Saidabad, District Hathras allowed the application of the investigating Officer under Section 82 Cr. P. C. On coming to know about the said order, petitioners immediately filed applications to surrender before the said Court. On 18. 5. 2005 petitioners moved an application before the court concerned to provide the copy of the case diary. The said application has been dismissed. The order of rejection of their prayer for giving them the copy of the case diary is violative of provisions of Sections 21 and 22 (1) of the constitution of India Relevant part of the prayer clause reads as under:i)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to send the entire records and all the entire proceedings against the petitioners for quashing the same to the extent it relates to the petitioners. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide copy of the case diary and other proceedings which relate to the petitioners. so! that they may be able to defend their cases.
( 6 ) THE record reveals tha
