RIZWAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 21 -8 -2000 and also the proceedings initiated on the basis of case Crime No. 43 of 2000, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B I.P.C. Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Saharanpur, State of U.P. v. Imran and Ors. in Case No. 871 of 2000. As the allegations against the applicants are factual in nature, it cannot be adjudicated in this application and after going through the application and other documents filed alongwith application, no good ground for quashing the criminal proceedings has been made out. It is settled principle of law that this Court in exercise of inherent powers cannot throttle the trial unless and until it is one of those rarest of the rare cases, where bare reading of the F.I.R. or charge sheet and the documents available alongwith charge sheet do not Prima facie make out any offence against the applicants. The Apex Court has ruled in catena of decision in the case of R. P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, 1990(2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC), Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Anr., 2003(47) ACC 433, where the legal position has clearly been settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made Prima facie established the offence and only when the Court is of the opinion that chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue, the proceedings could be quashed. In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2002(1) JIC 232 (SC) : 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been ruled that quashing of the criminal proceeding is an exception than a rule. Therefore, exercise of power should be consistent with the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr. P.C. and should be limited to very extreme cases and must be treated as rarest of the rare case so as not to scuttle the prosecution.

(3.) HOWEVER , the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously Counsel for the applicants has stated that since the proceedings in the present case was stayed for a long time after the present application was filed. It will be proper that if the bail application of the applicants is disposed of expeditiously, I am in agreement with this submission of the Counsel for the applicants and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail application of the applicants expeditiously, if possible on the same day.