The sufficiency of material to justify the summoning of accused and the categories justifying the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicants seeking the quashing of order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons against the applicants dated 08.09.2017 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.-VII, Varanasi as well as entire proceedings in complaint Case No.1073 of 2017 (Amit Kumar Singh vs. Raghvendra Pratap Singh and others), u/s 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sarnath, District-Varanasi.

2. Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate filed his power today on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the entire record.

4. Submission of counsel for the applicants is that there was no agreement arrived at in between the parties and therefore there is no question of any criminal breach of trust that might have been committed by the applicants. Further submission is that the criminal intention is not deducible from the contents of the complaint and therefore any criminal offence shall not be made out and at the most the dispute in question would be of a civil nature and therefore filing of the complaint is a bad use of the process of law. Counsel has also tried to submit before the Court that the allegation of hurling abuses will also not constitute the offence u/s 504 I.P.C. and similarly the threat that is said to have been given to cause death will not come under the definition of Section-506 I.P.C. Contention is that the intention to insult should be there in the allegations but the criminal intention in all the alleged offences is entirely lacking and as such none of the offences shall be made out and therefore the complaint in question ought to be quashed.

5. All other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

6. So far as the law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is concerned, the same is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.

7. Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose, (1963) AIR SC 1430, (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker, (1960) AIR SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

8. The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, (1960) AIR SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC(Cri) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide inst