Dismissed

Ahmed Raza and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2018A227/4602/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 refused to quash criminal proceedings regarding an FIR under IPC Sections 323, 452, and 354B. The Court held that the matter raised factual issues best left to the trial court and found a prima facie case sufficient to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the complaint, summoning order, or proceedings refused; coercive action stayed for two months.

Ahmed Raza and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4602 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ahmed Raza And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today on behalf of the petitioners are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 4th August, 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 296 of 2017 (Seema vs. Ahmed Raza & Others), under Sections 323, 452 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur as well as the order dated 6th February, 2018 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 212 of 2017 (Ahmed Raze & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others).

¶8

All the contentions raised by the petitioners' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

¶9

The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.

¶10

Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736

¶11

may be usefully referred to in this regard.

¶12

The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.

¶13

Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

¶14

The submissions made by the petitioners' counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶15

The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.

¶16

However, it is provided that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the petitioners may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application of the petitioners in the light of the judgement of this court in the case of Brahm Singh and

¶17

Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151 .

¶18

As an interim measure, it is provided that for a period of two months from today or till the petitioners appear before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶19

With the above observations, this petition stands disposed off.

¶20

(Rajeev Misra, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 19.7.2018

¶22

Sushil/-

Ahmed Raza and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed Raza and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chandra Vaishya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asp Construction and Builders Private Limited and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dayaram Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sudhakar Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rambabu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishan Lal Kashyap and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.