Single judge bench refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that a prima facie offence was disclosed in the FIR. Applicants were directed to surrender for bail within 30 days.
Prayer for quashing dismissed; applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days.
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. - 46
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34157 of 2018
Applicant :- Liyakat Ali @ Munna And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Anurag Vajpeyi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the memo of petition in respect of address of the applicant no.2.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceeding of Case No.10688 of 2017 pursuant to the charge sheet dated 10.6.2016 submitted in Case Crime NO.287 of 2016, under Sections 420,406,504,506 IPC, P.S. Cantt. District Varanasi pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the FIR against the applicants with absolutely false and concocted allegation when no such incident has ever occurred. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicants in perfunctory manner whereby the court below has taken cognizance of the offence without applying judicious mind as no prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.
Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the applicants as such the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Hence, the applicants do not deserve any indulgence.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants.
At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44)
ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of proceeding is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus the same is accordingly dismissed. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
However, the applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered in the light of Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
It is, further, provided that the applicant no.2, Badrunnisha shall be released on interim bail following the provisions of section 437 Cr.P.C. till the disposal of her regular bail application.
In case the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against them.
Order Date :- 8.10.2018 M. Tariq
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage.
Whether prima facie offence is disclosed from the FIR allegations warranting refusal of quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. BhajanlalReferred¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Crl) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P. P. SharmaReferred¶11
State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192 · Who else cites this
S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of BiharReferred¶12
S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44) ACC 168
Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶15
Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Liyakat Ali @ Munna and 2 Ors
State of U.P. and Another
Naheed Ara Moonis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
