Single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 392 IPC. The court held that the matter involves disputed questions of fact and does not fall within categories justifying quashing.
Prayer for quashing refused; interim vacated; bail to be considered within two months if moved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12737 of 2006
Applicant :- Shyamveer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 120 of 2006, Kulbhushan Singh versus Shyamveer, under Section 392 IPC, P.S. Fatehpur, District Saharanpur pending in the court of Judicial MagistrateIII, Saharanpur.
List has been revised. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. Perused the record.
All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant 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 on behalf of applicant. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 pretrial before the actual trial begins.
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.
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 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
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.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
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 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.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.
The interim order, if any, is vacated.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case after surrendering in the court below an application for bail is moved on behalf of the accused within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
It is clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 7.9.2018 CPP/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings against the accused should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the allegations constitute a prima facie case justifying the continuance of the trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra BoseReferred¶9
Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 · Who else cites this
Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji GhadigaonkerReferred¶9
Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 · Who else cites this
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa KonjalgiReferred¶9
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shyamveer Singh
State Of U.P.
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
