Sharda Devi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Anil Kumar-IX, J

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No./S.S.T. No.156 of 2019 (State Vs.Aniket Harsh and others), under Sections 363, 366, 120B, 368, 406 IPC & 17, 18 POCSO Act, Police Station- Mungra Badshapur, District- Jaunpur as well as charge sheet dated 16.10.2019.

Brief facts, which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this application are that an F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party No.2 against accused Aniket and his associates on 01.03.2019 alleging therein that they have enticed away his minor daughter (victim) aged about 17 years on 25.2.2019. She left the house with cash and ornaments. After investigation charge has been filed by the Investigating Officer against the applicant and co-accused Aniket and Krishna Chandra, under Sections 363, 366, 120B, 368, 406 IPC and 17/18 POCSO Act, Police Station- Mungra Badshapur, District- Jaunpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further argued that no offence is disclosed against the applicant and present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of harassment.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are false or witnesses have given false statements. Disputed question of the defence cannot be considered at this stage. He further submitted that at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

In the case of Monica Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 781 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan AIR 1989 SC 1 it was held that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are like to be established by evidence or not.

The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been examined by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, AIR 2003 SC 2616 and observed as follows:-

"The grounds on which power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings basically are (1) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused (2) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (3) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection".

In case in hand, from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant relates to the disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down in the above mentioned cases and in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426.

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings and charge sheet dated 16.10.2019 of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

Accordingly, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.