Single Judge dismissed an application seeking quashing of a summoning order and proceedings in a domestic violence/property dispute case, holding that the case did not fall under recognized grounds for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Application for quashing dismissed; interim order stayed coercive action for two months.
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. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23646 of 2018
Applicant :- Kali Din Yadav And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Ram Singh,Chandra Jeet Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 20th December, 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Allahabad, in Complaint Case No. 597 of 2017 (Smt. Sanjoo Yadav vs. Ashok Kumar & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationTharwai, District Allahabad as well as the entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case.
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 learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
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.
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.
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 applicants' 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 complaint, and also the material available on record make 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 complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant 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.
However, it is provided that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the applicants 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 of the applicants in the light of the judgement of this court in the case of Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151 .
As an interim measure, it is provided that for a period of two months from today or till the applicants appear before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed off.
(Rajeev Misra, J.)
Order Date :- 20.7.2018 Sushil/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC, 323 IPC, 504 IPC, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the allegations amount to sufficient prima facie ground to continue criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra BoseReferred¶9
Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 · Who else cites this
Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji GhadigaonkerReferred¶9
Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 · Who else cites this
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa KonjalgiReferred¶9
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶15
Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kali Din Yadav And 3 Ors
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
