RAJESH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THE applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the Chargesheet dated 17.7.2009 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1775/2009 case crime no. 371/2007 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409 I.P.C. Police Station JogiyaUdaipur District Siddharth Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Charge sheet has been submitted without collecting proper evidence and as such is liable to be quashed. Similarly the lower court has summoned the applicant in a routine manner and without applying its mind.
(2.) THE learned A.G.A. on the other hand argued that Charge sheet has been filed after proper investigation and after collecting sufficient material making out prima facie case against the applicant. Hon'ble the Apex Court dealing with the scope of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. has held as under in State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah 2009 (65) ACC 951 = 2009 (78) AIC 201 (SC). "When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the Trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC). A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows: (I) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the 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. (II) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (III) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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. (IV) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (V) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (VI) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (VII) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. I have considered over the argument and also perused the papers. In the case at hand the material collected by the investigating officer is sufficient to make out prima facie offence against the applicant and since there is sufficient evidence against the accused applicant I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the filing of the Charge sheet or in the order of the lower court by which the applicant has been summoned. The application is therefore, dismissed.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned lower court is directed that after the applicant surrenders in the court within three weeks from today his bail application shall be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed by 7 judges Bench of this court in Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., 2005 Cr. LJ 755 as approved by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. in criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009 Supreme Court dated 23.3.2009. Till the three weeks no coercive steps will be taken against the accusedapplicant. Application dismissed.;