Judgment:
ORDER
Indrani Datta, J.
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing criminal proceedings concerning Cr. Case No. 15003 of 2007 pending in the Court of CJM, Gwalior or in alternate for staying proceeding concerning Cr. Case No. 15003 of 2007 till decision of case pending against respondent No. 2 at Firozabad concerning Crime No. 617 of 2007.
2. As per petition, respondent No. 2 and co-accused had committed murder of petitioner's brother Suman Prakash Yadav on 12-10-2007 at 8.30 a.m. at Firozabad by firing gun shots at him. A report was lodged on the same day at P.S. Firozabad, U.P. by petitioner and case was registered against respondent No. 2 and Ors. for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of IPC. Copy of the FIR is Annexure P-1. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay, TI Gola Ka Mandir in conspiracy with respondent No. 2 in order to screen respondent No. 2 Ashok Dixit in connection with the offence of the murder of petitioner's brother on 12-10-2007 in connivance with ASI Bunkar and Head Constable Vijay Bahadur Singh and Ramvaran Yadav fabricated a false case and registered Crime No. 0 of 2007 under Section 34 of the Excise Act in Chauki Thatipur of P.S. Morar against respondent No. 2 in order to show that respondent No. 2 was not present in Firozabad on 12-10-2007 and he was present at that time in Gwalior at 9.30 a.m., where he is involved in the crime punishable under Excise Act. In that case, he had shown fictitious and untrue arrest of respondent No. 2 and case is registered against respondent No. 2 at 12.08 p.m. in connection with Crime No. 967 of 2007 at Police Station Morar. Charge sheet is filed in the Court of CJM, Gwalior. Copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure P-2 and arrest memo is Annexure P-4. Copy of FIR is Annexure P-5 and copy of report of Excise Inspector is submitted as Annexure P-6. Copies of statements of witnesses are Annexures P-7 and P-7-A. It is further contended in petition that police Firozabad during investigation of Crime No. 617 of 2007 found that Niranjan Upadhyay and some others are involved in the conspiracy of screening respondent No. 2 in connection with murder of petitioner's brother and they are responsible for offence under Sections 120-B and 201 of IPC within jurisdiction of P.S. Dakshin, District Firozabad in Crime No. 617 of 2007 and case was registered against Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay and five others and warrant of arrest were issued against them as per Annexures P-9 to P-14, thereafter proclamation requiring their attendance was issued against them as per Annexures P-15 to P-20. As per petition, Niranjan Upadhyay then filed one writ petition. Annexure P-21 is order passed in Cr. Misc. W.P. No. 10181 of 2008. Charge sheet has been filed against Niranjan Upadhyay on 12-10-2007 and against ASI R.P. Gunkar and Head Constables Vijay Bahadur and Ramvaran Yadav on 25-7-2009.
3. As per further averments of petition, Town Inspector Thana Firozabad has also filed one application before CJM Gwalior to stay further proceedings of exercise case pending in his Court against respondent No. 2 till decision of case pending in Firozabad on the ground that alleged incidence of murder occurred on 12-10-2007 at 8.30 a.m. at Firozabad and it is impossible that respondent No. 2 was present at 9.30 a.m. on 12-10-2007 at Gwalior which is 160 kms away from Firozabad. Hence, apparently, false manipulated case of Excise Act is registered at Police Station Morar by Town Inspector Niranjan Upadhyaya and Ors. to screen respondent No. 2 in connection with murder of Suman Prakash Yada v. Copy of application is Annexure P-22. That application was rejected by CJM Gwalior vide order dated 23-2-2008. Petitioner has also filed one application on 30-7-2008 in the Court ol CJM Gwalior as per Annexure P-24. In that Excise case, respondent No. 2 has filed applications in Court of CJM Gwalior as per Annexures P-25 and P-26 that he wants to admit his crime which shows his malafide intention to create ground of alibi to screen himself from actual offence committed at Firozabad concerning murder of petitioner's brother. Therefore, this petition is filed for staying proceedings of Excise Act in connection with Cr. Case No. 15003 of 2007 pending in the Court of CJM Gwalior against respondent No. 2 till decision of the case pending in Firozabad in connection with Crime No. 617 of 2007.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that case of Excise Act registered at P.S. Morar is fabricated only to create a ground of alibi for petitioner in order to show that he was far away from Firozabad and is not at all concerned with alleged offence of petitioner brother's murder committed at Firozabad. It is further contended that this case is rarest of rare cases for invoking inherent powers of the Court to secure the ends of justice and abuse of process of Court.
5. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that petitioner has no locus standi and he cannot file petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Second point raised by learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that no order can be passed which will affect disposal of the case pending at Firozabad and if plea of alibi is found to be false, then respondent No. 2 and co-accused will have to suffer consequences and if any order is passed in the case of Excise Act then what bearing it will have in the case pending at Firozabad.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 relied on following citations:
7. Slate of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors. : (2004) 1 SCC 691 wherein, it is held that quashing of proceeding by appreciating the evidence is not permissible even if the charge is framed High Court cannot appreciate the evidence but can evaluate material and documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
8. In State of Orissa and Anr. v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo : (2005) 13 SCC 540 wherein, it is held that exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, to do real and substantial justice and not to stifle legitimate prosecution.
9. Next reliance was placed on Central Bureau of Investigation v. KM. Sharan : (2008) 4 SCC 471 wherein, it is held that High Court was not supposed to 'embark upon the enquiry whether the allegations in FIR and the charge-sheet were reliable or not and thereupon, to render definite finding about truthfulness or veracity of the allegations.
10. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 invited my attention to Vitoori Pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharmmaiah and Ors. : (2002) 9 SCC 581 wherein criminal proceedings initiated against accused for offence under Section 420 of IPC were quashed by the High Court on the ground of pendency of civil suit for specific performance, then it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the order is not proper as pendency of civil suit in respect of the matter concerned would not be a bar to resort to criminal proceedings.
On the basis of these citations, learned Counsel for the respondents urged that proceedings pending in the Court of CJM Gwalior in Excise Act cannot be quashed or stayed only on the ground that case is pending against present respondent No. 2 at Firozabad for murder of brother of the petitioner.
11. So far as petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition is concerned, this argument is baseless. In case of A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Anr. : (1984) 2 SCC 500 it is held by Apex Court that punishment of the offender in the interest of society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a strait-jacket formula of locus standi. Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication, the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision for, it is a well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. In other words, the principle that anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion remains intact unless contra- indicted by a statutory provision. This general principle of nearly universal application is founded on a policy that an offence that is an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force is not merely an offence committed in relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against society. The society for its orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the name of the State representing the people which would exclude any element of private vendetta or vengeance. If such is the public policy underlying penal statute, who brings an act of omission made punishable by law to the notice of the authority competent to deal with it, is immaterial and irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the contrary.
12. In the light of the above legal position, the petitioner who is a complainant in the criminal case in connection with Crime No. 617 of 2007 registered against respondent No. 2 at Firozabad has locus standi to file this petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Now legal aspect and circumstances of the case is to be considered. Suppose for the sake of argument, if respondent No. 2 admits his guilt in the case of Excise Act pending in the Court of CJM Gwalior what will be its effect He will have a good ground of alibi that at the time of alleged murder of petitioner's brother he was not present at Firozabad but was present at Gwalior which is 160 kms. away from Firozabad. So it will cause a great prejudice in that case and on the other hand, in the interest of justice, if proceedings pending in the Court of CJM Gwalior are stayed, it will not cause any prejudice to respondent No. 2. Moreover, it will avoid conflicting judgments of two Courts. Therefore, it is good case for invoking inherent powers of the Court.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed and further proceedings pending in the Court of CJM Gwalior in connection with Excise Act pending in the Court of CJM Gwalior concerning Case No. 15003 of 2007 are hereby stayed till disposal of the Criminal Case pending at Firozabad concerning Crime No. 617 of 2007.
Copy to concerned Court.