The High Court refused an application to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Finding a prima facie case, the Court held that the matter involved disputed questions of fact suitable for the trial court and allowed proceedings to continue.
Application refused; proceedings against appellant not quashed.
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. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24287 of 2018
Applicant :- Ravindra Singh Bhadauriya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Aligarh as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 2664 of 2017,Rajendra Singh versus Ravindra Singh, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Aligarh.
Heard applicant's counsel and learned A.G.A.
Entire record has been perused.
All the contentions raised by the applicant's 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.
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 applicant's 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 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).
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.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 CPP/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint and summons proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the allegations constitute a sufficient prima facie case to proceed against the accused without a full trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra BoseReferred¶10
Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 · Who else cites this
Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji GhadigaonkerReferred¶10
Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 · Who else cites this
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa KonjalgiExplained¶10
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalExplained¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶16
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶16
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravindra Singh Bhadauriya
State Of U.P.
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
