Lokesh Kumar @ Lokesh Soni v. State Of Haryana And Another
!
"#
!$%&%"'(
!$!)*!+ ,
(
- . /0 0
1
!
0
1, / " # $ ! %&' ( (
) * )+",-.
'%.''.'/ !0'0
%.1 %-&2 3.1 0%"( ) $! (4
5 ! + # 6 $$!* $ !)
) !!
+"* #$) #! 2 ,' " # $$)
)6 $ 76 /0.%'..&
$$6
!$
6 !! # % 3.
...82
) 6 #$6 ) $!$ ! #
$ !
$9:
$
6 $ $$ )$
!$6))1 $ #$ # !! 4 2$ 6 $$! )4#!
$#!
! )
# ) $!$6 6 9!)
$!$ 4
!! 6 66
!$# )# !
) 7 # ) 6 6 $#) # ))$6
) )# ) $!$4 $ ! 6 6 ;6$$ 4 + ! ) 3.
...82 4 ! 6 # $
$ $ $!
0/.3'./< ! /'3 ( (
! 6!) ; !
4( ! $
! 0...82 # )$6
4
6
$) $ ! !! " #!#$
! $ # $$ $!
+" !
$$)
# ! $
$ ) './. 6 $
)
66 ) !
! ! #6 # 66 #!
6 $$) # ! 6
$ 2$ 6 6!6 !! #$ 4 $ $!
!-
) ! ) !
!; ) $ ) ! 6
6 6
64! $ $ ! ! /' ! :
5 !$! ! # +"* #
) #! 6$6 )6
! , # './/! !
#
$$) $ ; ) =#$ 9( 0 !
"# +2 '
'3 " 4!+& 5&
4 6 '
. 7 '3 " 4!+&>/--' >/?((003?
* )+" "
$
! $
! $ 6
/0.%'..& $$) $ $$+"
!!
$$) )
)
!
$!
! 4
!! $$) )
) )
6 # )! 4
#! $ # $$ $!
+"4 ) $ 4 6 '
. 7>
?
6
$
!
6
$ 6 #=#$ 9( 6! "(1) 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;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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;
(3) 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;
8
(4) where the allegations in the FIR 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;
(5) 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;
(6) 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;
(7) 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."
The allegations levelled in the FIR failed to qualify the test laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). Case is full of disputed questions of fact, veracity of which could be decided only after leading the evidence before the trial Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on this issue that the High Court should invoke the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with circumspection and consciously. I am supported by judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Odisha vs Pratima Mohanty etc. Crl.Appeal Nos.1455-1456 of 2021, decided on 11.12.2021, wherein it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the High Court should not carry out a parallel trial while invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The case in hand fails to qualify the test for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
However, petitioner is at liberty to avail his remedy as available to him under the law.
5! # ''
'.'/
0
1
/ 14! 4!+ &9! :%';<+! &"'!3 =
!&<"
/ 14! 4!+ +!9"+ *7!
=
!&<"