Dismissed

Dinesh Pathak and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2018A482/19485/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings based on a compromise, the Single Judge declined to quash the charge sheet. Finding a prima facie case, the Court held adjudication of disputed facts was for the trial court and refused the prayer, though it directed that bail applications be considered expeditiously within two months.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings under Sections 420, 447, 457, 380 and 120B IPC was refused; bail applications to be considered within two months.

Dinesh Pathak and 3 Others Vs State of Up… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19485 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Pathak And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Viveka Nand Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned cognizance order dated 06.10.2016 and order dated 26.11.2016 passed by C.J.M., Mathura as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.140 of 2016 (State vs. Dinesh Pathak and others), arising out of Case Crime No.953 of 2014, u/s 420, 447, 457, 380 and 120B I.P.C., P.S.Vrindavan, District-Mathura on the basis of compromise.

¶6

Shri Naveen Kumar Rai, Advocate filed short counter affidavit along with his power today on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Counsel for the applicants has sought the quashing of the impugned proceedings on the basis of a compromise that has taken place in between the opposite party no.2 and the applicants but the perusal of the record shows that the charge and the allegations which the applicants are facing are not for causing any personal grievance to opposite party no.2 and this does not appear to be a case in which the opposite party no.2 may be called competent to put an end to the proceedings. The opposite party no.2 is not personally aggrieved and appears to have been only an informant of the alleged offences that have been committed by the applicants. Therefore, the case is being decided on the merits of the case.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA.

¶9

Entire record has been perused.

¶10

All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel 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 by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

¶11

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.

¶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)

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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 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 F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes 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 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.

¶17

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

¶18

However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it may be observed that in case 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 same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶19

No coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to in the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier.

¶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. Order Date :- 29.5.2018 M. Kumar

Dinesh Pathak and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Pathak and 3 Others v. State of Up 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

Munib and 4 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Nanhey Lal Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Shyam Dixit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nimala Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rekha and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another