Partly allowed

Sharma and 7 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC29 May 2018A482/18995/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that the proceedings were not an instrument of oppression and factual disputes required trial court adjudication. Bail consideration was remanded to the court below with a moratorium on coercive steps for 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings not quashed; bail consideration remanded to lower court with a moratorium on coercive steps for 45 days.

Sharma and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18995 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sharma And 7 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings along with the summoning order dated 24.10.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj in Complaint Case No. 2973 of 2017 (Rambha vs. Sharma and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District- Maharajganj.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is sought to be invoked for quashment of the criminal proceedings.

¶8

It is well settled that power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the object of advancement of the justice or in other words to secure the ends of justice. It is only where the judicial process is found to have been converted into instrument of oppression or harassment, this Court will step in to arrest manifest injustice. While malicious or malafide institution of proceedings would be cases warranting inherent exercise of power, the court has to be cautious that the powers should not invade area set apart for specific powers conferred under Cr.P.C. ( Vinit Kumar and others v. State of U.P. 2017 (13) SCC 369 ).

¶9

Testing the facts of the instant case on the above set of the principles, I do not find that this case warrants any interference with the proceedings in question at this stage. Even on repeated query being made, learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any manifest injustice has occurred and that is likely to result in miscarriage of justice. The court after its due application of mind to the allegations made in the complaint and the averments made in the affidavit/ statements under section 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, has come to take cognizance in the compliant case and has caused issuance of the summoning order, which, on the face of it cannot be faulted with. It is well settled that the High Court cannot convert itself

¶10

into a trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. ( Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 215 ). In any case this is not a stage to conduct microscopic examination of facts and evidence to thwart the prosecution case.

¶11

Thus, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for at this stage of the proceedings in question.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants request that their plea for bail may be accepted and appropriate directions may be issued to the court below in that regard.

¶13

I do not see that any specific direction is needed to guide the discretion of Court to grant bail or to refuse it and no direction is equally needed to give any time frame as no exceptional circumstance has been referred to in the present facts of the case.

¶14

However, their plea for consideration of bail have been made with an undertaking that they shall appear before the court below within 45 days from today to show their genuineness on one hand and bonafide to co-operate with the trial on the other.

¶15

I hereby direct court concerned to consider the bail application on its own merit and dispose of the same keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶16

In the interest of justice, it is hereby provided that keeping in view of the undertaking given on behalf of the applicants, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants for a period of 45 days from today in pursuance of the criminal proceedings in question.

¶17

This application, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Atmesh

Sharma and 7 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharma and 7 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Sanjay Bansal Vs Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. and Others

Sanjay Patel and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohan Das Seth Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jata Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rekha Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kishore Shukla @ R.K. Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another