Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2018A482/16471/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet in a dowry case. Crucially, the applicant failed to provide a verified compromise letter. The court found a prima facie case and refused quashing, directing the accused to apply for bail below.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing charge sheet and proceedings was refused. Bail application directed to be filed in lower court within two months without coercive action.

Santosh Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16471 of 2005

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Avadhesh Singh,Pradeep Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,V.D. Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶6

Heard, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 52 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 307, 511 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Cantt, District Allahabad and also to quash the proceeding in case no. 112 of 205, (State Vs. Santosh Kumar Pandey and others) pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Allahabad and further prayer is to direct the authorities not to arrest the applicant in pursuance of the impugned FIR.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the compromise has taken place between the parties and it was submitted before the Investigating Officer but in spite of that the Investigating Officer has submitted chargesheet. The case is very old and the accused Om Prakash has been died since a very long time back hence no purpose would be served to get this case be decided on merit.

¶9

It is an admitted fact that charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants it shows that the complainant of the case was not agreed to get the case be compromised. It is also pertinent to mention here that compromise has not been verified by the parties. On the basis of compromise no order has been passed by the Competent Authority.

¶10

From the perusal of the record it shows that some other litigation was filed between the parties. The dispute is related to husband and wife.

¶11

It is also pertinent to mention here that on 06.04.2015 the complainant has filed an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police alleging the allegations against accused persons and after that application the chargesheet was submitted on 03.07.2005. By this application it is clear that the complainant was not ready to get decide this case on the basis of compromise as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

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.

¶13

The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of

¶14

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.

¶15

The submissions made by the applicants' 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 charge-sheet 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.

¶16

It is also pertinent to mention here that offence levelled against the applicants are not compoundable.

¶17

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

¶18

However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused 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, keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶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

Order Date :- 3.2.2018 A. Tripathi

Santosh Kumar Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Pandey 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

Raju Patel Vs State of U.P.

Satish Gond Vs State of U.P.

Kedar @ Kedar Nath Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj Sonkar Vs State of U.P.