Quashed

Vinod Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018A482/35866/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the summoning order and entire proceedings in a complaint case filed against the applicants. The court held the complaint was maliciously instituted with a view to wreak vengeance due to a private grudge and a pending civil dispute.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 01.09.2016 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4525 of 2015 are quashed.

Vinod Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35866 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Rai,Rishi Kant Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 01.09.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4525 of 2015 (Subhash Yadav vs. Vinod Yadav and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 379 I.P.C. Police Station - Sarailakhansi, District - Mau.

¶7

Brief facts of the case is that on 22.07.2015 at about 5.00 P.M. applicants/accused Vinod Yadav, Santosh Yadav, Avadhesh Yadav and Narendra Yadav went into the land belonging to complainant/opposite party no. 2 Subhash Yadav and started cutting trees there. On objection being made by the complainant they started abusing and chasing the complainant. Applicants/accused went into the house of complainant and have stolen Rs. 2035/- from his resident.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant no. 2 Santosh Yadav has filed a complaint case against Subhash Yadav and his family members. In counter blast of that complaint case, present complaint has been filed by opposite party no. 2 Subhash Yadav. There is a Civil Suit No. 785/13 (Sumali vs. Shyam Sundar) is pending between the parties, in which stay order has been granted by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Mau in favour of the applicants. Accordingly, no offence under Section 379 I.P.C. is made out. The present complaint has been filed maliciously with false allegations to harass the applicants.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate.

¶10

From perusal of complaint it reveals that there is a civil dispute between the parties. This complaint has been filed with frivolous allegations only to harass the applicants.

¶11

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana And Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335 held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised by the High Courts in the following categorites :

¶12

'' (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶13

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other

¶14

materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156 (1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code.

¶15

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶16

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155 (2) of the Code.

¶17

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶18

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶19

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.''

¶20

This case is squarely fell within the parameters indicated in category (7) of Bhajan Lal's case (supra).

¶21

Accordingly application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The summoning order dated 01.09.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4525 of 2015 (Subhash Yadav vs. Vinod Yadav and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 379 I.P.C. Police Station - Sarailakhansi, District - Mau. are hereby quashed.

¶22

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 VG..

Vinod Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Yadav and 3 Others 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

Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajneesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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