The central legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings should not be initiated without prima facie evidence, and allegations that do not prima facie constitute an offence may warrant quashing of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant seeking the quashing of order dated 27.7.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Hapur whereby application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant has been dismissed as well as entire consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No.1497 of 2015 (Tejpal Singh vs. Gunveer Rana and another), u/s 500 I.P.C., P.S.-Dhaulana, District-Hapur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First), Hapur.

2. List revised. Learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. are present. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite repeated calls. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams this Court does not see any justifiable reason to procrastinate the matter any further and deems it proper to decide the case on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A.

4. Submission of counsel for applicant is that perusal of entire complaint in fact does not constitute any offence so far as applicant Narendra Shishodiya is concerned. There is only at one place an oblique, bald and unsubstantiated allegation that the alleged said message, which according to the complainant amounted to defamation, was uploaded and spread in collusion with applicant. Submission is that the material or the evidence produced in the court does not contain any such element which may be said to constitute a substantive material evidence or a material which may be treated as incriminating evidence or relying upon which the conviction of the applicant may be upheld. Contention is that making allegation against somebody is one thing while producing material and evidence in support of the same is entirely a different matter. To allege that the defamatory message was uploaded in collusion with applicant is just a bald allegation which remains completely unsupported and unsubstantiated by any cogent material whatsoever. Submission is that actually the applicant has nothing to do with the message and even the perusal of the complaint and the evidence produced in the Court, does not prima facie constitute any offence against the applicant, and therefore, the continuation of impugned proceedings and the summoning of the accused-applicant on that basis is wholly unjustified and is simply an abuse of court's process, therefore, same deserve quashing.

5. Perused the record in the light of submissions made at the Bar. After perusing the record this Court finds substance in the submissions made by the applicant's counsel. This application has not been moved on behalf of other accused and therefore this Court abstains to give any finding or opinion regarding him but suffice it to observe at this stage that so far as applicant is concerned, there is hardly any substantive material available on record on the basis of which his summoning may be judicially vindicated. Facing a criminal prosecution is a serious thing and in fact by itself has a defamatory connotation and the people should not be summoned to face a criminal prosecution without at least prima facie evidence being available against them which appears to be so conspicuously lacking in the present case. In this regard we may usefully keep in perspective the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, in which certain categories have been recognized on the basis of which the criminal proceeding against a certain party or the accused may be quashed. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case as follows:-

"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possibl