Dismissed

Sageer Mohd. @ Ashu and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2018A482/16535/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, the Court declined to adjudicate disputed questions of fact. Holding that the case did not fall within recognised categories for quashing, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing the summoning order is dismissed; no interim or final relief granted.

Sageer Mohd. @ Ashu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16535 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sageer Mohd. @ Ashu And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Anil Kumar, advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 be taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 07.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj in Complaint Case No.1107 of 2017 (Smt. Ajima Begam vs. Sageer Mohd. @ Ashu and others), under Sectiions 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

All the contentions raised in this application by the applicants relates to disputed questions of fact. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

¶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 Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the board principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject in its judgement in the case of Prabathbai Aahir @ Prabatbhai vs. State of Gujrat (2017) 9 SCC 641 .

¶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

¶12

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 applicants' learned 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 pretrial 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. I do not find any justification to quash the summoning order 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 17.5.2018 Jitendra

Sageer Mohd. @ Ashu and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sageer Mohd. @ Ashu and 5 Others 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

Radhey Shyam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pal Singh @ Jaspal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Dr Mustaq Husain Vs State of Up and Another

Anis Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Javed and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramraj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another