Ashif and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

J.C. Gupta, J.—Heard applicant''s counsel.

This application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant in complaint Case No. 2880/96.

In the decision of Mushtaq Ahmad Vs. Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi and others, , the Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines as to in what circumstances the power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings u/s 482, Cr. P.C. should be exercised. It has been held that High Court cannot enter into the debatable area of deciding the question whether the version of the complainant or of the accused was true.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , a note of caution was given by the Apex Court in the following words :

We also gave a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent power do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.

In the case in hand, the Petitioner preferred revision before the Sessions Court against the summoning order and that has also been dismissed. It is also well-settled that after having availed the remedy of revision, power u/s 482, Cr. P.C. cannot be utilised for exercising the powers as a Second Revisional Court. Interference is permissible only when the Court is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed to proceed, it will amount to abuse of process of the Court or that interest of justice otherwise call for the quashing of the charges. Interference at initial stage should be only in exceptional cases where the interest of justice demands it, it cannot be a matter of course.

The present case is not one of those rarest of rare cases which may call for interference by this Court at the initial stage of the proceeding. It cannot be said that the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, make out no offence. In the circumstances, this application is rejected.