Dismissed

Dharmendra Madheysia and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2018A482/21092/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings involving the applicant. The Court held that disputed questions of fact and evidence evaluation belong to the trial court. A prima facie case existed, justifying the rejection of the quashing prayer.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of complaint and proceedings against the applicant is refused. Bail is to be applied for within two months to the court below.

Dharmendra Madheysia and 3 Others Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21092 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra Madheysia And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manu Sharma,Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar,Vineet Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing the impugned order dated 9.9.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrajganj as well as the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 762 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mahrajganj pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrajganj.

¶6

It seems that in order to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to undergo mediation proceedings. The report of Mediation Centre dated 19.11.2017 reveals that the aforesaid attempt could not succeed and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons. The Court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned AGA. Perused the record.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶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 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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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 I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order 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.

¶15

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

¶16

The interim order, if any, is vacated.

¶17

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).

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 18.9.2018 CPP/-

Dharmendra Madheysia and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Madheysia and 3 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

Vinod Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chandra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Puttan Babu Vs State of U.P. and Others

Aksheybar Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag @ Annu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another