Dismissed

Mahatab Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2018A482/34660/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings based on Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 IPC, the Court held that no manifest injustice was established. Since the investigation prima facie disclosed an offence and the petitioners offered no plausible explanation for the belated challenge, the application was rejected without interfering with the trial.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing of criminal proceedings was rejected. No interference with the procedural stage.

Mahatab Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34660 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mahatab Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet No. 157 of 2016 submitted on 22.06.2016 in Criminal Case No. 624 of 2016 (State v. Dharmendra and others) arising outof Case Crime No. 249 of 2016 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. on which cognizance has been taken by the court below. No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to why the proceedings is challenged so belatedly. No order-sheet has been brought to demonstrate the bona fide on the part of the applicants.

¶7

Even otherwise, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is sought to be invoked for quashment of the criminal proceedings. The charge-sheet upon which the court below has already taken cognizance and judicial process is on as per the procedure, is being questioned on various grounds and pleas taken in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous application.

¶8

It is well settled that power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the object of advancement of the justice or in other words to secure the ends of justice. It is only where the judicial process is found to have been converted into instrument of oppression or harassment, this Court will step in to arrest manifest injustice. While malicious or malafide institution of proceedings would be cases warranting inherent exercise of power, the court has to be cautious that the powers should not invade area set apart for specific powers conferred under Cr.P.C. ( Vinit Kumar and others v. State of U.P. 2017 (13) SCC 369 ).

¶9

Testing the facts of the instant case on the above set of the principles, I do not find that this case warrants any interference with the proceedings in question at this stage. Even on repeated query being made, learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any manifest injustice has occurred and that is likely to result in miscarriage of justice. The allegation in the first information report that have been found, prima facie, correct after investigation and have resulted in the charge-sheet cannot be said as not disclosing of an offence to hold that charge-sheet is ill founded. It is well settled that the High Court cannot convert itself into a trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. ( Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 215 ). In any case this is not a stage to conduct microscopic examination of facts and evidence to thwart the prosecution case.

¶10

Thus, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for at this stage of the proceedings in question.

¶11

The application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.10.2018 Atmesh

Mahatab Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahatab Singh and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Rajesh Kumar Jain and Another Vs Sulahkul Sehkari Awas Samiti and 7 Others

Hussain Ahmad Vs Rafeeq Ahmad (Deceased) and 5 Others

Rajendra Yadav and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Vs Srinath

Brijesh Vs Smt. Manorama (Deceased) and 2 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another