Dismissed

Ram Lakhan Singh Bhadauriya and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2018A482/1580/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court declined to quash the interim summoning order and proceedings under IPC and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(X).Finding prima facie case exists and pending trial facts are disputed, application dismissed citing statutory bar under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act 2016. Bail application permitted within 2 months.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; interim order vacated; direction allowed to file bail application within two months.

Ram Lakhan Singh Bhadauriya and Others Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1580 of 2007

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Singh Bhadauriya And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- K.K. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 13/19.9.2006 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-7th, Kanpur Nagar as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1530 of 2006, Ram Babu Sonkar versus Ram Lakhan Singh and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 325, 342 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sanchedi, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court below.

¶6

List has been revised. Despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf of the applicants to press this application. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also not present.Learned AGA is present. This application is of year 2007. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further procrastinate the matter. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record and with the assistance of the learned AGA representing the State.

¶7

The perusal of the grounds taken in the application, though not of much help, reveal that many of them 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 applicants. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The submissions raised in the application on behalf of 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 pre-trial before the actual trial begins.

¶8

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.

¶9

Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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 applicants 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.

¶14

It may be observed that this application can also not be allowed in view of Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 which has been introduced by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 1st January, 2016.

¶15

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

¶16

The interim order, if any, is vacated.

¶17

However, 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

¶18

accordance with law.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.

¶22

Office is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the lower court concerned.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.10.2018

¶24

CPP/-

Ram Lakhan Singh Bhadauriya and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lakhan Singh Bhadauriya and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Makbool Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Malhotra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mashooq and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samant Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chand and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahajad Husain Vs State of U.P. and Another