Dismissed

Babli Pasreecha and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2018A482/34175/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings filed under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120-B. Court held that prima facie offence was disclosed and quashing is an exception. Applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of proceedings dismissed; applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail within 45 days.

Babli Pasreecha and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34175 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Babli Pasreecha And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet dated 22.7.2017 whereby cognizance has been taken against the applicants by order dated 1.9.2017 to face trial in Case No. 11449 of 2017 arising out of case Crime No. 287 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, district Saharanpur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report has been registered against the applicants with mala fide intention when prima facie no offence is made out against them. The Investigating Officer pursuant to the first information report swung into action who has conducted the investigation in a very flimsy and pedantic manner and submitted the charge sheet against the applicants in a perfunctory manner. The entire prosecution is the offshoot of personal vendetta. The court below has also taken cognizance against the applicants without applying his judicious mind directing them to face trial under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B I.P.C., hence the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence, which does not suffer from any procedural illegality. The allegation made against the applicants cannot be sifted at this stage.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 the 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.

¶14

However, the applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of 45 days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶15

In case the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against them.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.10.2018 Shahnawaz

Babli Pasreecha and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babli Pasreecha and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Santosh Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anotehr

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Banvari Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Jahid Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Umar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Loola and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another