VIJAY NARAIN YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has come forward with a prayer that proceedings of Criminal Case No. 89 of 1982 may be quashed. It would appear that in pursuance of the report lodged by the opposite party no, 2 concerning an alleged incident of 7-10-1982 at about 1 P. M. a case was registered, investigated upon by the police and ultimately charge sheet has been submitted by the police.

(2.) IT is urged that the FIR is motivated and counterblast, and offence under Section 332 is not disclosed and only offence under Section 323 IPC will be made out and consequently the Investigating Officer could not carry the Investigation. IT is also urged that as the client of the applicant, who are the accused, was not released inspite of the release order and there were certain obstruction by way of demand of illegal gratification etc. a contempt proceeding has also been lodged. IT is also urged that the Court may look into the defence as well for coming to any conclusion.

(3.) IT was next urged that in any case the FIR is motivated and in cases of any patent absurdity the Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC may enter deep into the matter as to consider all the surrounding circumstances. Reliance was placed on the case of Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850. In that case it was held that the dispute raised as purely of civil nature and Criminal proceedings initiated was an abuse of process of law. Reliance is further placed upon the case of Raj Kapoor v. Laxman, AIR 1980 SC 605 in which the Court looked into certain materials and considered the defence plea and allowing the appeal held that the prosecution is bad. Reliance is also placed upon the case of Debt Prasad v. State, 1973 AWR 672. The facts of that case are patently distinguishable as in that case, actually the order of the superior authority was not strictly according to law and hence Section 332 was held to be inapplicable. Reliance was also placed upon the case of N. C. Nagpal v. State, 1979 CrLJ 998 concerning the scope of inherent jurisdiction. There can not be a dispute that the Courts have vast powers under Section 482 CrPC. What a Court has to consider is whether in each individual case it is a proper case in which such powers are to be exercised. In fact, the leading case on this point in which the guidelines were laid down concerning exercise of inherent powers is the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866. The principles laid down in that case were further reiterated in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 and the latest pronouncement is the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v, Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67. In fact, principles laid down In various other pronouncements is again the same. What the Court has to examine is whether a prima facie case is disclosed, whether on the contrary the allegations are patently absurd, whether there is such a conclusive proof which will render the prosecution allegations totally false etc. At the same time the Court has to be always conscious that it is not sitting as trial court. If it starts functioning as a trial court itself the normal procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code would stand destroyed and this cannot be the object of Section 482 CrPC. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) it was at one place held that the Court shall examine whether, taking the allegations and materials on record as such without adding or substracting anything to it there Is a prima facie case. In fact in that very case the prosecution of some was quashed while prosecution of some other were not quashed. I very much desire to avoid any observations which may cause any prejudice during trial but as all the time stress is being laid that the applicant has a defence, I could not avoid at least brief observation. Cross reports are not common but that does not mean that the law should not take normal course because there is cross case. Opposite party no. I had admittedly received injury in his office. IT will be for the lower court to consider whether the explanation given by the applicant for such injury that the opposite party had got struck with the table of his own accord is convincing or the prosecution a/legation that this injury was caused by the applicant is more probable and likely. The appreciation will depend upon the evidence led during the trial. IT was in end urged that the proceeding is Contemptuous and so that should be stayed in view of the case of Haji Ahmad Hussain v. State, 1960 AWR 141. IT is a settled law that law has to be applied to the facts of the case. In view of the admitted facts of the case it is clear that some incident did take place in the office and naturally if that is the position the law will take its own course during the trial and proceedings cannot be considered as contemptuous. The application is summarily rejected. Application rejected.