Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
Bhupinder Singh And Others - Applicant
Vs.
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Party
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23667 of 2008
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 506 and 386 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 200, 202 and 482 - Offence of Criminal intimidation - Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt - Charged - Filed seeking quashing of proceedings Opposite Party No.2, who was employed as a Workman/Assistant Operator in establishment of applicants namely K & T Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., District Ludhiana, lodged a Criminal Complaint on before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaya, District Kushinagar, against the applicants and two armed unknown persons alleging inter-alia that at about 12:00 noon applicants who are Manager, Director and Managing Director of K & T Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Rampur along with two gunmen came in a Car and asked complainant to sign certain blank papers. On asking of complainant to sign certain blank papers applicants informed him that papers would be used for purpose of filing compromise in case lodged by him against company in Tribunal and for withdrawing same - Whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.
Finding of the Court :
In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash proceedings is called for only in a case where complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive - It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of case before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal - Complaint has to be read as a whole - In view of above, and for reasons stated above, Court is of considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against applicants is an abuse of process of Court and ends of justice requires that said proceedings be quashed - Consequently, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.4859 of 2002 (Deep Chand Vs. Bhupendra & others) (Renumbered as 91 of 2007) under Sections 506, 386 IPC, Police Station, District pending before 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial magistrate, Kasaya, Kushinagar is hereby quashed.
Result: Application stands allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel representing the Opposite Party No.2. Learned A.G.A. appears on behalf of the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.4859 of 2002 (Deepchand Vs. Bhupendra and others) (renumbered as 91 of 2007) under Sections 506, 386 I.P.C., P.S. Turkpatti, District Kushinagar, instituted by the Opposite Party No.2 against the applicants and pending before the court of the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Kasaya, Kushinagar.
3. Briefly stated the facts sworn of unnecessary details are that the Opposite Party No.2, Deep Chand Singh, who was employed as a Workman/Assistant Operator in the establishment of the applicants namely K & T Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Rampur, Doraha, District Ludhiana, lodged a Criminal Complaint on 07.01.2002 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaya, District Kushinagar, against the applicants and two armed unknown persons alleging inter-alia that on 16.12.2001 at about 12:00 noon the applicants who are the Manager, Director and Managing Director of K & T Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Rampur Doraha Ludhiana along with two gunmen came in a Car and asked the complainant to sign certain blank papers. On asking of the complainant to sign certain blank papers the applicants informed him that the papers would be used for the purpose of filing compromise in the case lodged by him against the company in the Tribunal and for withdrawing the same. On the refusal of the complainant the applicants got annoyed and pulled the gun on the wife of the complainant and threatened to abduct her and his child and kill them. The Opposite Party No.2 further stated in the complaint that he had worked in the Company in the capacity of Assistant Operator and on 16.17.2000 night about 2:30 am he lost both his eyes during the course of working and he has lodged a case for compensation in the Labour Tribunal Ludhiana which is pending. The complainant out of fear put his signatures on all five pages. The incident was witnessed by the wife of the complainant, Madan Singh son of late Sitaram Singh and Ram Niwas son of Vijay Bahadur. The applicants left after threatening the family of the complainant. The FIR was not registered despite all efforts and finally the complaint has been lodged with the prayer that the applicants be summoned and punished.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasaya, Kushinagar after considering the statements of the Complainant/Opposite Party No.2 and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and other materials on record dismissed the complaint vide order dated 22.02.2002 being of the view that no ground to prosecute the applicants under Sections 386 and 506 IPC was made out as admittedly both eyesight of the complainant was lost and from the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 the identity of the accused applicants, who were alleged to have visited the complainant, could not be established.
5. The order dated 22.10.2002 of the Judicial Magistrate, Kasaya Kushinagar was carried in Revision before the District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ist, Kushinagar being Criminal Revision No.61 of 2003. The Revisional Court set aside the order dated 22.10.2002 of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting the complaint being of the view that the learned Magistrate failed in his legal duty to test the statement of the complainant as also the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 by asking questions. The Revisional Court observed that offence under Sections 386, 506 I.P.C. was made out against the applicants. The Judicial Magistrate was directed to rehear the complainant and pass appropriate orders. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 13.02.2007 in compliance of the order of the Revisional Court holding that offence under Sections 386 and 506 I.P.C. was made out against the applicants summoned the app
Point of Law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see ....
High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to accused, would save preci....
The evidence produced by the accused in his defense cannot be looked into by the court at the pre-trial stage. The court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings is to prevent ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case to be made out against the accused and the limitations on the court's power to appreciate evidence at the pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
The court emphasized that allegations lacking evidence do not justify the summoning of accused, highlighting the necessity of due diligence by the Magistrate under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Points of law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
