Dismissed

Ram Kishor v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2018A482/34698/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings for offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC, the High Court held that since a prima facie offence was made out, the prayer was refused. The applicant was directed to surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; applicant directed to surrender and apply for bail within thirty days.

Ram Kishor Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34698 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Kishor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceeding of Case No.379 of 2016 pursuant to the charge sheet no.26 of 2016, dated 24.1.2016 submitted in Case Crime no.812 of 2015, under Sections 354,506 IPC, P.S. Banda, District Shahjahanpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Powayan, District Shahjahanpur.

¶8

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the FIR against the applicant with absolutely false and concocted allegation when no such incident has ever occurred. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant in perfunctory manner whereby the court below has taken cognizance of the offence in a pedantic manner without applying judicious mind when no prima facie offence is made out against the applicant.

¶9

Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence.

¶10

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 applicant.

¶11

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.

¶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

¶13

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.

¶14

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 applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶15

However, the applicant is 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 keeping in view of the settled law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

¶16

In case the applicant fails to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against him.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.9.2018 M. Tariq

Ram Kishor v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishor 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

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Murari @ Kshatrapal Goswami Vs State of U.P.

Deoraj Vs State of U.P.

Nazar Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Jyotsana Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Angad Prasad @ Angad Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another