The High Court declined to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to delay and lack of manifest injustice, but directed the trial court to consider bail after 45 days with an undertaking by the applicants.
Application disposed; bail plea to be considered by court below; no coercive steps for 45 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. - 26
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35088 of 2018
Applicant :- Braham Dev Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Datta Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet dated 03.07.2015 and the criminal proceedings in pursuance thereof in Case No. 2141 of 2017 (State v. Braham Dev Yadav & Ors) arising out of Case Crime No. 473 of 2015, U/s 147, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kothi Bhar, District Maharajganj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to why the applicants are approaching the Court after so much delay of about two years. 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.
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 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 2017 (13) SCC 369) .
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 Vs. 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.
Thus, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for at this stage of the proceedings in question.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants requests that their plea for bail may be accepted and appropriate directions may be issued to the court below in that regard.
I do not see that any specific direction is needed to guide the discretion of Court to grant bail or to refuse it and no direction is equally needed to give any time frame as no exceptional circumstance has been referred to in the present facts of the case.
However, their plea for consideration of bail has been made with an undertaking that they shall appear before the court below within 45 days form today to show their genuineness on one hand and bonafide to co-operate with the trial on the other.
I hereby direct court concerned to consider the bail application on its own merit and dispose of the same keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
In the interest of justice, it is hereby provided that keeping in view of the undertaking given on behalf of the applicants, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants for a period of 45 days from today in pursuance of the criminal proceedings in question.
This application, accordingly, stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 10.10.2018 IrfanUddin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. warrants quashing of charge sheet and criminal proceedings.
Whether specific directions are needed for the trial court to consider bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinit Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Vinit Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 2017 (13) SCC 369 · Who else cites this
Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 215 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶15
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶15
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Braham Dev Yadav And 4 Others
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
