Dismissed

Chunni Lal and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2018A482/31333/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court held that the complainant's allegations of armed entry, snatching documents, and threatening the complainant made out a prima facie case. The court refused to quash the proceedings or summoning order, finding no abuse of process, but directed the lower court to expedite the bail application. An interim stay on coercive actions was granted.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing was refused; interim coercive action stayed for two months.

Chunni Lal and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31333 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Chunni Lal And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sant Ram Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 276 of 2018; Maiyadeen versus Chunni Lal and others, under Sections 452, 395, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Chilla, District Banda, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge / Special (D.A.A.), Banda as well as summoning order dated 4.6.2018.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that one complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants alleging therein that applicants have obtained a forged sale deed in their favour from his mother with intention to grab his property in respect of which civil suit is pending. Due to this enmity on 19.7.2013 at about 5.00 AM. applicants entered into complainant's house armed with lathi-danda and firearms; snatched a bag from complainant containing Rs.21,000/- as well as some important documents by showing country made pistol and managed to escape from there giving life threat to him. On hearing noise, witnesses, namely, Munni, Sunil and Sushil came there and seen the incident. The complainant filed an application in police station concerned as well as before the Superintendent of Police, but neither any case was registered nor any action has been taken against the applicants, hence he filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In support of prosecution case statement of complainant Maiyadeen was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. whereas statements of PW-1 Smt. Munni and PW-2 Sushil were recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C..

¶8

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.

¶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

In the case of Jia Lal Sharma v. State, 1982 CrLJ 1913 (Del). Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that for the issue of process against the accused it has to be only seen whether prima facie case has been made out.

¶11

In the case of Narayani Devi v. State, 2002 CrLJ NOC 64 it was held that the Magistrate is not required to go deep into the probative value of the material on record.

¶12

In the case of Parsoon Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., AIR 1972 SC 1607 it has been held that where allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose alleged offences, summoning order is justified.

¶13

In the case of Faroq Dadabhai v. State of Inspector of Police, 2002 (4) Crimes 546 it was held that where the Magistrate proceeds under Section 204 Cr.P.C. for issue of summons or process, the Code makes no distinction between a private complaint case and a police case, the Court is required to find out if any prima facie case is made out from the material placed.

¶14

In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 1921 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously as if it was the trial Court nor is he required to scrutinize the evidence by the same standard by which the trial Court scrutinizes the evidence at the stage of framing charge.

¶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 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

¶17

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 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that in case applicants appear before the court below and apply for bail within two month from today, the court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application of the applicants in the light of the observation made in the case of Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151 .

¶20

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.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation, the present application is finally disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.9.2018 NS

Chunni Lal and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chunni Lal and 4 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

Intezar Vs State of U.P.

Majid Vs State of U.P.

Ayyub Vs State of U.P.

Niranjan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Hari Bheji Vs Khatun Begam and Others

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another