The High Court dismissed an application to quash a charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC. The court held the petition raised disputed questions of fact requiring trial resolution and found a prima facie case existed against the applicant.
Application for quashing of charge sheet and proceedings is refused and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19938 of 2018
Applicant :- Madhuri Alias Kumari Vimlesh Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no.369-A/16 dated 11.02.2017 submitted by police in Case Crime No.0542/2015, under Sections 302/323 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, taken cognizance on 28.03.2017, pending in the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur (State vs. Madhuri @ Vimlesh).
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that 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.
All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel 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.
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 .
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.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The submissions made by the applicant's 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.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 1.6.2018 Jitendra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet under Sections 302/323 IPC constitutes a prima facie case preventing quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the prosecution proceedings are malicious, malafide, or instituted with ulterior motives.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prabathbai Aahir @ Prabatbhai vs. State of GujratFollowed¶9
Prabathbai Aahir @ Prabatbhai vs. State of Gujrat (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalFollowed¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa KonjalgiFollowed¶10
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madhuri Alias Vimlesh
State Of Up
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
