LAWS(ALL)-1985-3-42

MANJOO SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On March 28, 1985
MANJOO, SRIVASTAVA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have come forward with a prayer that the complaint dated 5/9/1979 against the applicants be quashed as the complaint itself does not disclose any offence as regards the present applicants. I have considered the affidavit counter affidavit rejoinder affidavit and also annexures including the complaint. It would appear that the complaint has been lodged against the present applicants and two more persons namely Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha and Kameshwar Prasad Sinha. Applicants Nos. 1 and 2 are daughters of Narbadesh far Prasad Sinha applicant No. 3 is the wife of Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha while applicants Nos. 4 and 5 are sons of Narbadeswar Prasad Sinha. Applicant No. 6 is the nephew of Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha. A perusal of the complaint would show that the entire allegations are directed against Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha and Kameshwar Prasad Sinha. The acts consituting any offence have also been exclusively attributed to them. The complaint does not disclose any offence whatsoever even prima facie to have been committed by the applicants. The administration of justice and in particular, prosecution for any penal offence should not be debased into a persecution. The law very much deplores it. The case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1 lays down the various grounds on which the Court should exercise its inherent powers and interfere. One of the grounds laid down is where the very complaint does not disclose any case against any person. It has gone to the extent of even saying that if evidence is patently absurd which would not be believed can also constitute a ground for quashing the proceeding. In other subsequent pronouncements of Honble Supreme Court not only reliance has been placed upon this leading case of R.P. Kapur (supra) and the principles laid down therein have been reiterated but rather later pronouncement have mentioned that there may be some other grounds also justifying interference. In this case I have now to consider whether the complaint itself is such that no case whatsoever against I the present applicants is disclosed and I am fully satisfied that it is so.

(2.) It was urged that the case lingered on for about four years because the present applicants did not co-operate with the Magistrate and absented themselves on innumerable dates and even a resort to proceeding under sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. had to be made. This would not justify the hanging on of the prosecution against the applicants when the complaint itself, does not disclose- commission of any offence by them, rather it will be a harassment of the very applicants that the Damocles sword has been kept hanging over their heads for such a long period while they should not have even been summoned on the face of the complaint. True that there is positive and categorical allegation against Kameshwar and Narbadeshwar but they do not figure as applicants and naturally the complaint will proceed against them when a prima facie case is disclosed against them, without being affected by quashing of the complaint against the others, namely, the applicants but so far as the applicant are concerned why should they be harassed to face the criminal trial when the complaint itself, which is the foundation of the case, does not disclose any case against the applicants. Their mere presence in their house or in the room would not render them guilty. Obviously the ladies and the other inmates of the house would be in the house and simply because any other inmates of the house commit offence others would not be come guilty or a party to it.

(3.) The next argument urged was that, the trial is at an advanced stage and the pleas that are Ming raised could be raised before the trial court itself. Reliance in support of such argument is placed upon the case of Amar Chand v. Shanti Bose. This ruling does not help the opposite parties at all. From the uncontroverted averments in the affidavit it would be found that so far even charge has not been framed. What has been observed in the Supreme Court case is that the aggrieved person should come to the court for any quashing at the earliest at least immediately after the framing of the charge. In the present, case even charge has not been framed so it the court finds that no case is disclosed against the applicants on the face of the complaint itself, it will not hesitate to quash the proceeding against the applicants.